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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the variable fields per analyst (citation_rate and weighted_score, share_of_voice, or sentiment counts) and the chronological order of rows. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict the response shape.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core purpose. The description is tight and informative without unnecessary flourishes. Every clause carries meaning.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description covers the row structure, dimensions, ordering, and field variations by analyst. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for an analytical series tool that may be acceptable. The missing usage guidance slightly reduces completeness, but overall the tool is well-specified for its complexity.

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description does not repeat parameter details but the schema's analyst field already explains the custom_prompt exclusion. The description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 what the tool returns: 'The score series of a tracker' with explicit row dimensions (analyst, keyword, engine, tracker version, survey period) and chronological ordering. It distinguishes the data granularity from a simple list, though it doesn't name alternative tools. The title reinforces the purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_responses or list_trackers. The context implies it's for analytical series but there's no explicit recommendation or exclusion. The only related hint is in the schema for tracker_id ('call list_trackers to find it'), which helps locate the required parameter but not when to choose this tool.

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