IndieStack

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

Annotations only specify readOnlyHint:false; the description adds crucial behavioral context including authentication requirements ('Requires an API key') and the side effect (generating analytics signal). It also notes the data limit (max 10 slugs). No contradiction with 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?

Front-loaded with purpose statement, followed by usage trigger, value justification, auth requirements, and parameter docs. Efficient structure with no wasted words, though the Args section is utilitarian rather than narrative.

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's simplicity (2 flat parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers purpose, invocation trigger, auth needs, and parameter semantics without needing to explain return values since output schema exists.

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, the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters in the Args section: 'tool_slugs' includes type (list) and constraint (max 10), while 'query_context' explains semantic purpose ('What the user asked for').

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 opens with a specific verb ('Record') and clear resource ('which tools you considered'), explicitly defining the tool's analytics/logging function. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'recommend' or 'get_recommendations' by emphasizing this records evaluation choices rather than generating them.

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 guidance ('Call this when you evaluate multiple tools for a user's request') and explains the value proposition ('helps IndieStack understand demand patterns'). Could be strengthened by explicitly contrasting with siblings like 'recommend' or 'report_outcome', but the context is clear.

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