trending_businesses

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

The description discloses the ranking algorithm (Wilson Lower Bound scoring) which adds transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, or any rate limits, leaving behavioral gaps for an annotation-free 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure. It mentions filters but omits some parameters in text. For a low-complexity tool, it is adequate but could provide more complete context.

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 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal new meaning. It lists three filters (category, city, country) but omits period and limit from the text, and does not provide additional context beyond the schema.

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 returns trending/popular businesses based on search frequency, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_businesses by focusing on popularity rather than specific queries.

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 implies the tool is for discovery ('shows what other agents are looking up'), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_businesses or agent_favorites. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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