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

The annotations already cover the tool's safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral detail: the index is weekly, the data excludes ads, sellers, bots and mass mailings, and request examples are anonymised so contact details and links to the message are redacted. It does not discuss rate limits, coverage gaps, or the minimum sample needed for a number to be meaningful, so the description is slightly incomplete but not misleading.

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 one tightly front-loaded paragraph: it leads with what the tool is, then gives usage examples, then explains the data's exclusions, then explains how to pass the parameters. The capitalized 'REAL' and repeated emphasis on 'actual demand from real people' are mildly promotional, but the description earns its length overall.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return behavior, and it does: it states the result is a weekly index number and, with query, recent anonymised example requests. One gap remains: all three parameters are optional in the schema, so the description should explicitly say what happens when topic or country is omitted.

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 a baseline of 3 would be defensible. The description earns a point above that by explaining that topic should be supplied in the asker's own words in any language, and that query not only returns recent examples but returns them with contact details and links redacted, which is output behavior the schema does not state.

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 concrete resource and scope: a live weekly demand index built from real buyer requests in public Telegram group chats, with ads, sellers, bots and mass mailings excluded. That is specific enough to separate it from siblings such as search_telegram or market_stats, which do not claim to be a demand 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 gives two explicit example questions it answers ('what are people looking for in Telegram in <country>' and 'is there demand for <service> in <city>'), which makes the intended use clear. However, it never names a sibling tool or states when NOT to use it, so an agent must infer the boundary with search_telegram or market_stats itself.

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