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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by clarifying what each view returns and by specifying that limit is ignored for sources/heat and that omitting it uses the view's default, which goes beyond the raw schema.

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 compact and well-organized, with each subview given a short definition and a dedicated note for limit. The opening metaphor 'The attention layer's raw texture' is somewhat vague, but it does not waste words and the parameter-related content is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with only two parameters, an output schema, and one enum, the description covers the essential calling semantics: what each view means and how limit behaves. The main missing piece is an explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling rayana_ai_trends, but this is not critical for basic 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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the parameters. It defines every enum value of view (sources, heat, search, video) and clarifies the behavior of limit, including its view-specific scope and default behavior. This is strong compensation, though it does not specify limit's numeric range or format.

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 identifies the tool as exposing the attention layer's raw texture and enumerates four concrete subviews (sources, heat, search, video), each with a specific meaning. It is clear about the resource but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'return', and it does not differentiate itself from the sibling rayana_ai_trends tool.

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 gives useful per-view context and explains that limit applies only to search/video, which is a form of usage guidance. However, it never says when to choose this tool over the sibling rayana_ai_trends or any alternative, leaving the selection largely implied by the name 'detail'.

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