get_sentiment_trend

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it shows sentiment evolution over time, but does not describe return format, data freshness, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a read tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one sentence plus a tag) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word is justified, but it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness. Still, it is efficiently written.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the output contains, how to use parameters like days, summary_type, etc., and lacks guidance on expected results. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., the phone parameter usage is already clarified in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it shows sentiment evolution over time, distinguishing between global and per-phone trends. The verb 'Muestra' and resource 'evolucion del sentimiento' make the purpose explicit, and it is distinct from sibling tool get_sentiment_analysis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a hint: without phone it shows global trend, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool vs alternatives like get_sentiment_analysis. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.