analyze_server_engagement

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the authentication need (Bot token) and the return type ('estimated activity level'), but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what 'engagement' precisely means, or any potential side effects. The description provides minimal behavioral context.

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 efficiently communicates purpose, requirement, and output. Every word adds value without 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, input, and output type. However, it could briefly explain what 'estimated activity level' means (e.g., range or classification) to be fully complete.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description of the format. The tool description does not add any further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 tool's action ('Analyze'), resource ('Discord server's engagement'), and output ('Returns estimated activity level'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_public_servers' and 'generate_moderation_rules' by focusing on analyzing a specific server's engagement metrics.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires Bot token') and a qualifier ('FREE'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_public_servers' or 'find_relevant_channels'. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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