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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by explaining the calculation methodology (pageview concentration vs quiet-day baseline), data filtering, update frequency, and listed output fields. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior and data characteristics.

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 two information-dense sentences: the first defines the metric and its output fields, the second provides usage context and update cadence. Every sentence carries useful information, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

With one optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what the metric measures, output fields, when to call it, and its update timing. The schema covers the parameter, making the overall tool documentation complete.

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?

The only parameter 'days' is fully documented in the schema, including its optional nature, range, and Gold tier requirement for history. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to add parameter details; baseline 3 applies.

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 a 0-100 news-cycle intensity gauge' and details its source (English Wikipedia pageview concentration) and output fields. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from generic index or attention tools in the sibling list.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use triggers: 'Call when the user asks what the public is paying attention to, how loud the news cycle is, or what's trending — or when timing announcements, launches, or media spend around cycle saturation.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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