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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the data is public and anonymous, covers the last 90 days, and includes both buyer demand shares and how many listed apps answer each need.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then enumerates the report contents. It is efficient with no filler, though the sentence is long and could be split for faster scanning.

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 analytics tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the report includes: demand shares by feature/integration/security/budget, a 90-day window, anonymity, and app coverage counts. It does not specify a response format, but that is a minor gap for this tool type.

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%: the single parameter 'category' is documented with a clear example in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (a category's public demand report) and the content it returns (share of buyers asking for each feature, integration, security need, budget, and how many listed apps answer). However, it never explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_categories or recommend_apps, which keeps it from a 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 explains what the report contains but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_apps, recommend_apps, or list_categories. Usage is only faintly implied by the word 'demand report,' which matches the 2-level calibration for 'no guidance.'

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