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

The annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds valuable non-obvious semantics: dev_events_30d is null rather than 0 for no_public_repo and unmapped, and attention_without_substance is only set when the state was actually measured. This precisely clarifies edge-case behavior an agent would otherwise misread.

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 front-loaded with the core question, then delivers a compact state list and a real-world caution. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting makes the four states easy to parse without excessive verbosity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description documents the important output semantics: states, null behavior, and conditional field population. It does not define what counts as 'attention' or explain the limit parameter, but the core invocation and result interpretation are covered well enough for an agent to use it 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?

The only parameter is 'limit', but the description never mentions it flags, bounds, or what it applies to. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate for the sparse schema, but it does not. The name and default 40 are mildly inferable, but the definition adds no semantic value for this parameter.

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 evaluates: whether an AI-sector project ships code relative to the attention it gets, and it defines the four possible states. It is domain-specific and conceptually separate from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 strong interpretive guidance: the 'unmapped' state must never be reported as a project failing to ship, and it provides the RENDER example to reinforce the rule. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus a sibling like get_signal_integrity, but the context is otherwise clear.

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