taste_novelty_loyalty

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral transparency. It explicitly states 'Read-only, no auth,' which addresses side effects and access requirements. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only reporting tool these are secondary. Overall, it provides a solid baseline.

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 sentence that packs all essential information: the report type, its key metrics, the verdict options, and the read-only/auth status. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately hints at the return structure by listing top-5 share, recent-outside-core share, and the verdict. It does not explain parameter interactions, but the parameter descriptions in the schema cover that. The tool's purpose and output are sufficiently clear for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (range, statsfm_user, response_format), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra detail about how parameters influence the report, but the schema descriptions suffice for basic understanding. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.

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: it generates a loyalty-vs-novelty report with specific components (top-5 share, recent-outside-core share, verdict). This is a distinct resource among the many taste-related sibling tools, and the action is implicit in 'report' but the output structure makes it unambiguous.

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 when a loyalty-vs-novelty analysis is desired, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from other taste tools (e.g., taste_profile, taste_recommendations). No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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