hip4_cross_product_overlap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only, data retrieval operation with no side effects, and specifies output fields. However, it does not mention rate limits or any potential latency, but for a simple query tool this is sufficient.

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 sentences: first states purpose and output, second states a requirement. Every word is essential, and the most important information is front-loaded. No 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its prerequisites. It does not explain edge cases or interpretation of percentages, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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%: both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on 'compact toon format' or other details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 measures overlap between HIP-4 outcome traders and perp traders over a window, naming the specific counts returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single categories or other 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 includes the requirement 'Pro-or-higher key' as a usage constraint, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or explain when to choose this over similar tools like hip4_outcome_summary. The unique purpose is clear, but guidance on when-not-to-use is absent.

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