signal_fanout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search is parallel, normalizes engagement across sources, and returns a synthesized brief with consensus themes and money outliers. While this gives some insight into behavior, it omits details such as whether the tool modifies any state, handles rate limits, or what happens if sources are invalid, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 front-loads the action and key details. It packs significant information efficiently, though the structure could be improved by separating the output description for clarity.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description should be more comprehensive. It provides a high-level overview but fails to cover input expectations, default behaviors, or the exact nature of the synthesized brief, leaving an agent without sufficient context to call the tool correctly in all scenarios.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters but does not. It mentions source names in prose but doesn't map them to the 'sources' parameter, nor does it clarify the meaning and constraints of 'query' or 'limit_per_source'. The default values are not elaborated, leaving agents to guess semantics.

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 performs a 'parallel multi-source signal search' across named platforms (Product Hunt, HN, Twitter, Reddit, Polymarket) and returns a synthesized brief. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from unrelated siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar signal tools like collect_signals or resolve_signal.

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 multi-source signal research but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer the intended context.

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