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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds some context about the time window and the 'new brands' ranking criterion, but does not disclose sorting details, tie-breaking, or what the result list contains.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses example queries efficiently to clarify intent. Every clause contributes to selection or usage.

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 ranking tool, the description provides enough to invoke it with defaults, but with 19 parameters and no output schema it leaves substantial gaps about filtering semantics and returned fields. It is minimally viable but not thorough.

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 only 21%, so the description needed to compensate, but it does not explain most parameters. It only implies 'recent window' and 'NEW brands' conceptually; the many min/max filter parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: find sellers/operators ranked by how many NEW brands they expanded into in a recent window. It also distinguishes itself from per-seller tools by explicitly saying it applies to 'any cross-cutting operator question without a specific seller named.'

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 concrete example user phrasings and a clear routing condition: use when the question is cross-cutting and no specific seller is named. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the exclusion of named-seller cases is enough to guide selection.

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