acedatacloud_get_distribution_rank

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the operation is a ranking based on price or reward but says nothing about pagination, ordering behavior, side effects, authentication requirements, or what 'attributed' means. This is a sparse description that leaves much to inference about the tool's behavior.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without any verbose or redundant content. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the meaning of key terms like 'attributed price' or 'reward', nor does it clarify how to interpret the ranking or any limitations. While the output schema may cover return structure, the description lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively, especially with sparse schema descriptions.

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 has descriptions for only ordering (33% coverage), and the description adds no parameter-level information. It does not explain how limit and offset function, the meaning of 'price' or 'reward' in the ordering enum, or how these parameters affect the ranking. Since schema coverage is below 50%, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Rank the caller's invitees by attributed price or reward' clearly specifies the action (rank), the resource (caller's invitees), and the criteria (attributed price or reward). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like acedatacloud_get_platform_distribution_rank, which presumably ranks platform-wide, by explicitly scoping to the caller's invitees.

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 implies usage for retrieving a ranking of one's own invitees, which differentiates it from platform-level ranking tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like acedatacloud_get_platform_distribution_rank, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on choosing among related tools.

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