score_trend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about cost ($0.005 USDC) and service type ('signal'), which aren't captured in the schema. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the return format looks like beyond the high-level categories mentioned.

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 appropriately concise at two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and outputs, while the second provides operational details (cost and service). There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from operational details more explicitly.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for parameters, the description is inadequate. While it states the purpose and some operational details, it doesn't explain the parameter semantics, doesn't describe the return format beyond high-level categories, and provides no usage guidance. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'topic' and 'context' parameters should contain. The description mentions scoring 'AI trend topics' which gives some hint about the 'topic' parameter, but offers no guidance on format, examples, or what constitutes appropriate input. The 'context' parameter is completely unexplained.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Score an AI trend topic' with specific outputs (momentum, maturity, hype vs reality). It uses a specific verb ('Score') and identifies the resource ('AI trend topic'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'compare_trends' or 'model_threats' which might also analyze trends.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions cost and service information, but doesn't indicate scenarios where this tool is appropriate or when other tools like 'compare_trends' or 'model_threats' might be better choices. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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