Persimmon

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses filtering (public-citable only), that a coverage_status is always included, and that internal items are filtered. This provides good behavioral transparency beyond bare functionality.

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 sentences, immediately stating the use case and key details. No superfluous information, every sentence earns its place.

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, it describes return fields (text, tier, score, source URL, coverage_status). Parameter count of 3 is fully covered. Sibling tools are listed, providing context. It feels complete 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for brand, limit, and tier_floor. Description adds context about public-citable signals and coverage_status, which are not in schema, thus adding value beyond what schema provides.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'signals', specifying they are 'recent harvested signals' with fields like text, tier, score, and source URL. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on signals backing a brand's score, differentiating from get_competitive_context and get_momentum_index.

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 explicitly starts with 'Use this when an agent needs', providing clear context for usage. It also notes that only public-citable signals are returned, which guides expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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?

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool always includes a coverage_status and excludes certain peers, but it does not mention if the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any latency/rate-limiting implications. The behavioral info is useful but incomplete.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no extraneous information.

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 the tool returns competitive context (set, snapshots, one-liner) and has no output schema, the description only vaguely hints at the output structure. It mentions coverage_status and exclusion rules, but lacks specifics on the format of snapshots or the one-liner, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding of the return value.

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 input schema already describes both parameters adequately. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline of 3.

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 brand's competitor set, peer momentum snapshots, and a competitive-position one-liner. It names specific resources and actions, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_momentum_index, which might overlap on momentum snapshots.

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 starts with 'Use this when an agent needs...' which is a good usage trigger, but it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., get_brand_signals or get_momentum_index). The exclusion of scaffold tier peers is mentioned, but overall guidance is limited.

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 provided; description carries full burden. Discloses key traits: 'Pure read; no LLM calls in scoring.' Does not discuss permissions or side effects, but read-only is clear.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous information. Efficient and clear.

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?

No output schema; description fully explains return values (composite score, four dimensions, tier band, signal count, timestamp). Also notes read-only nature. Complete for a 2-param optional 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?

Schema coverage 100% with good descriptions. Description does not add significant meaning beyond schema. 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?

Clear verb+resource: returns momentum score for a brand or index. Mentions four dimensions. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings but purpose is distinct.

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?

Explicit use case: 'Use this when an agent needs Persimmon's deterministic momentum score.' Provides context but no when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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