ranking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone; it discloses what the response contains (top 10 plus rationale and confidence) and that evidence=true expands to probes behind the top 5. It says nothing about read-only nature, cost, or whether the extra evidence is expensive, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and then the optional flag. No filler, though the phrasing is telegraphic enough that some clarity is traded for brevity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate for a lot. It handles the evidence flag and response shape adequately but leaves the two required parameters and any safety/cost profile unexplained.

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 all three parameters depend on the description. It explains evidence (adds probes behind the top 5 scores) well, but run and item are undocumented — an agent must guess the run identifier format and what an 'item' index means.

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 a specific resource ('the full ranking behind one run item') and enumerates the returned substance (top 10, placement rationale, confidence), so an agent can tell it retrieves ranking detail for a single run item. It does not name a sibling it differs from, so it falls short of the top score.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives like run, fetch_result, or describe. The only usage information is the evidence flag's effect, not when to call this tool versus another.

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