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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent. The description adds that the tool returns both Pick Rate and readiness level as separate signals, and explicitly warns that readiness barely predicts Pick Rate—useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads the primary output, the second explains the secondary returned value and adds a critical caution. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (Pick Rate, rank, readiness level), defines Pick Rate, and provides an interpretive caution. This is fully sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 description for 'tool' is 100% complete, explaining accepted identifier types (name, slug, domain, package). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool retrieves a single tool's Pick Rate and rank, defining Pick Rate as the share of time AI agents pick it over competitors on unbranded tasks. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like getLeaderboard and getMyAgents.

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?

It implies use for a single tool rather than a leaderboard, and warns not to infer Pick Rate from readiness level. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for multi-tool queries or when to use getLeaderboard instead.

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