get_trending

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context about data sources (GitHub, Hacker News) and content categories, but omits behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, freshness, or pagination. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the tool's outputs without any filler. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, and no restructuring is needed.

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 tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content. However, it leaves a clear gap by not explaining how to use the kind parameter or what happens when it is omitted, which could lead to incorrect invocation.

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% and there is one optional enum parameter (kind) with no documentation. The description loosely describes the three content categories (repos, discussions, people) but never mentions the parameter name, its enum values, default behavior, or how to select a category, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 scope: trending items in AI agents across GitHub repos, Hacker News discussions, and people to follow. It is specific about the resource and content types, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings or name an alternative, keeping it from a 5.

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 only lists what the tool returns; it never states when to use this tool instead of the siblings (e.g., get_guide, search_atlas) or any prerequisites. Usage is implied at best, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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