desaira

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that videos are public and limited to a sample of 20, indicating a read-only, low-sensitivity operation. However, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, though 'public' and 'get' imply a safe read.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no waste or repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema and simple optional pagination parameters. The description provides the essential purpose and limit, though it could clarify that pagination is available via the provided cursor/page parameters. Overall, combined with the schema, it is sufficiently complete for a basic feed retrieval.

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 schema fully describes all three parameters (page, cursor, per_page) with 100% coverage. The description only redundantly mentions 'max 20' (already in per_page's schema) and adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the description provides no extra value 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 identifies the tool as retrieving the newest public DesAira videos, with a size limit of 20. The verb 'get' and resource 'videos' are specific, and 'newest' distinguishes it from get_trending (trending) and get_video (single item), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a use case of browsing recent public content but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool versus siblings like get_trending or get_video. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so guidance remains only implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the 'max 20' limit and 'by engagement' ranking, but does not mention pagination behavior, default values, or any side effects. As a read-only operation, there is no destructive behavior to disclose, but it still could include more contextual detail like rate limits or required auth.

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 well-structured sentence front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or vague filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema and simple read semantics, so the description covers the core purpose and key constraints. It does not mention pagination defaults or behavior, but these are partially captured by the schema. Given the low complexity, the description is nearly complete but lacks explicit guidance on defaults or the relationship to sibling tools.

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 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The description adds context for 'window' and 'per_page' via 'time window' and 'max 20', but does not explain 'page' or 'cursor'. The schema already documents page and cursor well, so the description adds marginal value but not enough to exceed baseline.

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 'Get trending DesAira videos by engagement for a time window (max 20).' It uses the specific verb 'get', identifies the resource as trending videos, and includes key qualifiers 'by engagement' and 'time window.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_feed or search_content.

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 when to use the tool (when retrieving trending videos with a time window) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool versus siblings such as get_feed or search_content.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the profile is public (implying no auth needed) and that it returns the newest videos. However, it doesn't mention behavior for nonexistent usernames, rate limits, or the exact structure of the response, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the target resource, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description conveys the core functionality and the public nature of the data. However, it doesn't specify how many 'newest videos' are returned or any other return details, which could be important for an agent. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a basic read tool.

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 input schema already fully documents the 'username' parameter with the note '(without @)'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a DesAira creator's public profile plus their newest videos.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_video (single video), list_creators (listing creators), and get_feed (feed of content).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a specific creator's profile and videos by username. It differentiates from list_creators and search_content by focusing on a single creator, but it lacks explicit exclusions or 'use X instead' guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose a key trait: it returns page_url and explicitly states there is no direct media URL. However, it does not mention what happens for invalid hashes, error responses, or any other side effects, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the most important caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler 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?

For a simple one-parameter metadata lookup, the description covers the essential context: what it returns (metadata), how to identify the video (hash), and a critical limitation (no direct media URL). It does not enumerate all metadata fields, but since there is no output schema, a bit more detail could be offered; however, the description is still adequate for basic usage.

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 schema fully documents the hash parameter with a description ('Video hash (8+ hex chars)'), and the description merely repeats 'by hash' without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the exact resource ('metadata for one DesAira video') keyed by hash. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_feed or get_trending, which operate on collections rather than individual videos.

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 usage when a hash is available (e.g., 'by hash'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides no comparison to sibling tools or exclusion criteria, leaving the usage context implicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden but only partially. It adds useful details: 'public' (no auth), 'by follower count' (ordering), and 'max 20' (result cap). However, it does not disclose sort direction, pagination continuation semantics, response format, or rate limit 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, focused sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and constraints with no filler. Every phrase adds value: 'public', 'by follower count', and 'max 20'.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (pagination via page/cursor/per_page) and no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify the return shape or pagination behavior. It states the core purpose and constraints but omits what the response contains and how to continue pagination beyond the schema's cursor description. This is a clear gap for no-output-schema tools.

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 descriptions cover page and cursor (67% coverage), leaving per_page undocumented. The description adds context that results are ordered by follower count and capped at 20, which helps interpret per_page. It does not deeply explain parameter interactions like how cursor relates to page, but the schema already provides baseline descriptions.

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's action and resource: 'Browse the public DesAira creator directory by follower count (max 20).' The verb 'browse' plus the specific resource and ordering distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user (single user), get_feed, and search_content.

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 intended context—browsing a public creator directory ordered by followers—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it stops at implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sorting criterion (video count) and the limit (max 20), which are key behavioral traits. It does not describe output format, but the description is transparent about the essential 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys all necessary information succinctly.

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 and no parameters, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's basic function. It could mention what fields are returned, but the phrase 'by video count' implies the output includes the count, making it reasonably 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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the result is, but parameter semantics are not applicable.

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 lists the most popular DesAira hashtag categories by video count with a max of 20, using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_feed or get_trending, which focus on other content.

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 context is clear: use this to retrieve popular hashtag categories. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident and distinct from sibling tools, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states what the tool searches for and gives no behavioral context such as result format, pagination, ordering, or authentication. This leaves significant ambiguity about tool 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 concise sentence, starts with the action verb, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple one-parameter search tool, the description adequately states the search scope but lacks information about return format or usage context. Given no output schema, more detail would be helpful, but it is not severely incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter q described as 'Search query.' The description phrase 'by keyword' adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource (DesAira) and the content types (videos, hashtags, creators), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list/get tools. It states exactly what the tool does.

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 keyword-based search across multiple content types but does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like list_creators or get_video. No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided.

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