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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: it clarifies the data is public, scoped to score gainers and new profiles, and explicitly warns against misuse for hiring decisions. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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: two sentences plus a JSON example. The key usage condition is front-loaded, the scope is stated, and the example earns its place by showing the expected parameter shape. No filler exists.

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, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the necessary behavioral and usage context. It tells the agent when to use it, what it returns conceptually, and what it should not be used for. Nothing essential is missing.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters, so the description does not need to cover them in detail. It adds a concrete example object {'days':30,'limit':10} that demonstrates how the parameters combine, which is genuinely helpful for invocation. This exceeds the baseline but remains complementary rather than comprehensive.

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 resource (public score gainers and high-ranking profiles new to impact tracking) and the specific verb (lists). It also highlights the recency/momentum angle, which distinguishes it from generic search or profile tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 opens with an explicit usage condition ('Use when recency or momentum matters') and includes an important exclusion ('do not use as a hiring recommendation'). It does not mention alternative sibling tools, which would have elevated it to a 5.

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