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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that demand is separated into content-intent and noise clusters, that project fit is prioritized over request volume, and that unrelated demand remains visible but is excluded from automatic action suggestions. It also mentions materialization state and sensor coverage, providing rich transparency about the tool's behavior.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('Get project-scoped 404 Demand') before detailing the clustering and filtering logic. It is not overly verbose for the complexity of the tool, though it could be broken into sentences for readability. Every sentence adds value.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: clusters, materialization state, sensor coverage, relevance, and how unrelated demand is handled. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output. There are no parameters to document, so nothing is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on output and behavior rather than parameter details, as none exist. This 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project-scoped 404 Demand from the current materializer window'), and differentiates itself from sibling tools by focusing on 404 demand with clustering and noise filtering. It is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: it is project-scoped and tied to the current materializer window. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the description makes usage conditions obvious, so no additional guidance is needed.

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