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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the data's verification process (OCR, store resolution, hard verification) and content (store name, category, CBSA code, spend amount, no PII). It could mention rate limits or default behavior (e.g., limit default 20) but effectively conveys what the tool does and its properties.

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 two concise sentences that convey purpose, data details, and a cross-reference to another tool. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool does, what data it returns, and how to interpret the output (CBSA codes). It is self-contained and gives sufficient context for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'limit' parameter fully described in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 tool retrieves 'recent verified spend activity signals' from the Crinkl network, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing the nature of signals (cryptographically attested, passed OCR extraction, etc.) and referencing resolve-cbsa for metro names, which is not done by other tools.

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 provides context on what the tool returns (recent verified signals) and advises using resolve-cbsa for CBSA code conversion. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide exclusive alternatives, but the guidance is clear for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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