novada_ai_monitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds meaningful behavioral context like analyzing sentiment, extracting claims, identifying competitor mentions, and listing output components. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Best for, Not for, Output, Models supported). No redundant sentences; every line adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and usage.

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?

Input parameters fully documented. No output schema, but description covers output components (sentiment, claims, competitor mentions, source URLs). Could mention pagination or limits, but not critical for this use case.

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 100%, so baseline 3. Description repeats model list and output expectations but doesn't add new semantics beyond the schema descriptions. Topics parameter remains generic.

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?

Clearly states the tool monitors AI model references for a brand, with specific verbs 'check how AI models reference'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like novada_search and novada_scrape in the 'Not for' section.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('Use when you need to check how AI models...'), best-for, and not-for sections with specific tool alternatives (novada_search, novada_scrape), giving clear decision criteria.

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