get_trail_heat

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real substance beyond that: what the payload contains (per-number evidence states, components, registry resolution), that aggregate responses include live agent recommendations, and the tiebreaker eligibility rule. Some phrasing is opaque, but the behavioral disclosure is genuinely richer than the annotations.

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 opening bracket block ('[Capability: available; tier: scout_preview_pioneer_full; API: ...; authority: ...]') is routing metadata that does not help an agent decide or invoke. The remaining sentences are dense with unexplained internal terminology, so length is spent on noise rather than on the one thing missing — sibling differentiation.

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 output schema, the description does useful work describing the response contents, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a tool sitting among three closely named Trail Heat siblings, the omission of any disambiguation leaves the definition incomplete for correct tool selection.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly confirms 'Takes no parameters,' matching the empty schema with additionalProperties: false. No further parameter meaning is needed or missing.

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 core is identifiable — it fetches DeFiLlama-backed Trail Heat scores (0-100) — but it is buried under a bracketed metadata prefix and jargon like 'editorial separation' and 'registry resolution'. Crucially, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools query_trail_heat and get_historical_trailheat, so an agent cannot tell which of the three to call.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus query_trail_heat or get_historical_trailheat, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage-adjacent fact is 'Takes no parameters,' which is a schema restatement rather than guidance.

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