Niche Report

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool 'Consumes 3 orchyn credits,' which is essential for cost-aware tool selection. It also conveys that the report is market-level and current ('right now'), complementing the openWorldHint annotation.

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 sentences deliver the core value proposition, the cost, and the usage context with zero filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for practical use: it states what the tool returns, when to use it, what to avoid using it for, and its credit cost. An output schema exists, so return-value details are handled structurally. Annotations cover safety and mutability. No significant context is missing.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('Posts to survey', 'Niche or topic', 'Platform to survey'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add new semantic detail about parameters, but it does imply that 'niche' is the central input and that the report is survey-based, which weakly reinforces the schema without going beyond it.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: surveying what works in a niche (formats, hooks, over/underperformance, gaps) and recommending what to make next. It also distinguishes itself from tools that analyze a single post by saying 'rather than judging one post,' which differentiates it from siblings like analyze_post and analyze_creator_profile.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when entering a niche or deciding what to make next.' It also provides a clear exclusion: 'rather than judging one post,' signaling that post-level analysis tools are the alternative. This gives the agent actionable routing guidance.

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