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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: results are anonymized, wallets/cohorts are never identified, insufficiently-backed buckets are dropped, and data is descriptive only, never a recommendation. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 purpose, then adds constraints, caveats, and workflow guidance. It is appropriately sized for a tool with important privacy and non-recommendation semantics. Minor redundancy exists around the anonymization guarantee, but it earns its place by emphasizing a key constraint.

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 intelligence tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, workflow, window options, privacy guarantees, and caveats. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented caller_id parameter and the lack of explicit sibling-tool exclusions, but the overall context is strong.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for window by listing valid values (24h|7d|30d|90d|all) and implies strategy_type's role in comparing parameter choices. However, caller_id is left completely undocumented, leaving one of three parameters unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource: an 'anonymized fleet strategy-parameter leaderboard' that 'ranks param_performance collective insights by effect_size'. This clearly differentiates it from generic leaderboards like get_leaderboard and get_score_leaderboard by focusing on strategy parameters and anonymized fleet aggregates.

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 provides an explicit workflow: use it as an INTELLIGENCE step to compare a strategy_type's parameter choices against fleet-wide outcomes before adjusting via suggest_parameter_adjustment or strategy tools. It gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use other leaderboard tools.

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