Trending now

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note about data freshness, result limits, or region/language effects, even though 'trending' data is inherently time-sensitive and locale-dependent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the two selection axes are packed in without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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?

For a simple read-only trending lookup, the annotations cover safety, the output schema covers return values, and the description covers both input axes. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on what 'trending' means (ranking window, region) would complete it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It maps both parameters to natural language ('today or this week' for timeWindow; 'movies, TV shows, people, or all of them mixed' for mediaType), and 'all of them mixed' genuinely clarifies what the 'all' enum value does. However it omits the defaults (week, all) and adds little that the enum names don't already convey.

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 identifies the resource (trending content on TMDB) and its scope (media types and time window), which is enough to distinguish it from the search_*, discover, and get_*_details siblings. It is phrased as a question rather than a verb+resource statement, so it stops short of a 5, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for 'what's trending' questions, but the description never says when to prefer it over discover or search_movies/search_tv_shows, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. That is the definition of implied-only guidance.

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