velocity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses time windows, ranking metric (shape-normalized L2 distance), and behavior caveat (uniform volume rise doesn't count). It is transparent about how the tool works, though it could mention it is read-only.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then adding use case and technical nuance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 an output schema (not shown), return values need not be explained. The description covers input, logic, and use case comprehensively. No missing elements.

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 0%, so description should compensate, but it does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. While the parameter is simple (integer with defaults), the lack of any description means the agent must infer its purpose from context. This is a gap.

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 that the tool identifies concepts with the most significant shifts in tone distribution between two time windows (prior 48h vs most recent 24h), making the purpose obvious. It also explains the ranking metric, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'emerging' or 'tone'.

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 a clear use case ('where is the narrative turning?') but does not explicitly compare to alternatives. However, the context signals and sibling tool names imply differentiation; the description offers enough guidance for informed selection.

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