Library Quality Distribution

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It only says 'Summarize quality distribution' without mentioning whether it reads data, requires parameters, pagination, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or typical usage.

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?

While extremely concise (one sentence), the description is under-specified. It fails to provide needed information, making it not earn its place. Conciseness without substance is not effective.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage, many siblings), the description is critically incomplete. It does not cover return format, grouping, filtering, or how the distribution is summarized.

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?

With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'to', 'app', 'from', 'page', etc., are used for, leaving the agent with only parameter names and types.

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 states a vague purpose ('Summarize quality distribution') but does not specify the scope or differentiate from sibling tools like 'quality_distribution'. It is a generic statement that could apply to multiple tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'quality_distribution', 'audio_distribution'). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are provided.

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