IndieStack

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that results are 'zero-result queries ranked by search volume,' clarifies the ranking methodology (search volume), and interprets the business meaning ('unmet demand'). It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but covers the core return behavior well.

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?

Efficiently structured with a clear progression: concept definition → return format → business interpretation → use cases → parameter documentation. No wasted words. The 'Args:' section is slightly informal but clear. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct information.

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 has an output schema and simple integer parameters, the description is appropriately complete. It explains the domain-specific concept of 'market gaps' sufficiently for an agent to understand what is being returned, without needing to duplicate the output schema structure.

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 0% schema description coverage (only titles provided), the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters in the Args section: 'days' is defined as 'Look back period' with constraints (default 30, max 90), and 'limit' is defined as 'Number of gaps to return' with constraints (default 10, max 50).

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 immediately defines 'market gaps' as 'things developers and AI agents search for but can't find' and clarifies these are 'zero-result queries ranked by search volume.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_tools by emphasizing unmet demand for tools that 'don't exist yet' versus finding existing ones.

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?

Clearly states when to use: 'for tool makers deciding what to build next' and 'for agents understanding what categories have coverage gaps.' However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., 'do not use when looking for existing tools') or name specific sibling alternatives.

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