Reference & provenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: 'No network' signals static, offline, deterministic, side-effect-free retrieval. That is genuinely beyond structured data. It does not discuss output size, caching, or error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and the key constraint ('Static reference text', 'No network') are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the argument list is compact. The stray blank lines and 'Args:' block add minor formatting noise but no wasted prose.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema documentation tool, the description covers what it returns, its offline nature, and every valid topic value. The only omission is any hint about the shape or length of the returned reference text, which is minor.

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% and the schema declares no enum for `topic`, so the description is the only source of valid values. It lists all ten accepted topics (overview, indexes, benchmarks, pricing, speed, providers, media, fields, sources, all) plus the default and the 'fields' alias caveat, fully compensating for the schema 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?

States exactly what the tool returns (static reference text) and enumerates its subject matter: tool routing, metric/eval definitions, provenance. The phrase 'which tool answers what' explicitly positions it as the meta/routing doc relative to the many aa_* siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

'Use to learn what the fields mean and which tool answers what' gives a clear affirmative trigger for invocation, and 'No network' implies it is the fallback for terminology questions rather than data. It stops short of naming exclusions (e.g., don't call for live numbers – use aa_leaderboard), so it is not a full 5.

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