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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it states the board measures directory attention only, not revenue/users/growth/MRR; that no payment or badge affects rank; that movers covers the last completed week rather than the last seven days and that the `week` field names it; and that an empty board means no traffic yet rather than no products. These are exactly the interpretive traps an agent would otherwise fall into.

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?

Well front-loaded and organized, with purpose first, then ordering, then caveats, then exclusions. However it is long and makes the same 'attention only, not revenue' point three separate ways ('not revenue, not users, not growth', 'MRR is never a ranking axis here', 'no badge, streak or payment moves a listing up'), which costs it conciseness credit despite the useful content.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming response fields that matter (`week`, `unmeasured`) and explaining what an empty board means. For a 5-parameter, enum-driven ranking tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the result correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already defines every parameter and the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: that metric is ignored under sort=movers, that a listing with backlink.verified false scores zero, and that MRR is never a ranking axis — semantic constraints the schema does not carry.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('rank products by engagement on the directory') and enumerates the exact axes (upvotes, outbound clicks, impressions, shares, verified backlinks). It explicitly carves itself away from the sibling search_products ('Do not call it to filter or find products by their attributes'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use trigger ('Call this for any question about relative standing'), a named alternative for the excluded case (search_products), and disambiguates the two orderings by question type — sort=score for 'what is biggest' vs sort=movers for 'what is rising/what changed this week'. The when-not guidance is as strong as the when guidance.

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