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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (returning data) and does not warn about side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The term 'return' strongly suggests a safe get operation, but without explicit statements or annotations, transparency is only moderate.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys purpose and scope without unnecessary elaboration.

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's simplicity (no output schema, one optional parameter), the description covers the key aspects: what is returned and the parameter's effect. It does not specify the default behavior when 'limit' is omitted or the exact output format, but these are minor omissions for a straightforward get 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?

The single parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema ('Maximum number of rows returned in each intelligence list'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that the limit applies per intelligence list, which is useful for agents. Thus it slightly exceeds the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a distinct object ('aggregated AfriResolve usage intelligence'), enumerating the contents (total activity, demand signals, popular queries, tool usage, knowledge gaps). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which focus on finding, resolving, or listing specific dishes or terms.

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 implies when to use the tool (when aggregated usage intelligence is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from siblings, the lack of explicit exclusions is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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