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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the proprietary SolEnrich query stream, real-time nature, and the two distinct output modes, which is useful context. It lacks details on rate limits, data freshness guarantees, or how 'trend' is computed, but overall it is fairly transparent.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy: the first states the core function, the second adds provenance, and the third gives usage modes and windows. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Without an output schema, the description reasonably covers return expectations by mentioning top-N, rank/percentile/trend, and windows. It could provide an example or specify the response format, but it is sufficient for the tool's moderate 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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that passing `address` yields rank/percentile/trend and that omitting it gives top-N, which goes beyond the schema's 'single-entity report' phrasing.

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 identifies the tool as surfacing current query activity from other agents, which distinguishes it from price or money-flow tools. It also specifies two modes (address vs. top-N) and names the proprietary data source, making its role unambiguous among the sibling tools.

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 explains how to use the tool (omit address for top-N, pass address for a single-entity report) and the available time windows, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it. While the context is clear, there are no named alternatives or exclusions.

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