topvisor_get_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (distribution across top positions, optional metrics) but does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, authentication requirements, or any limits. The behavior is adequately but not exhaustively described.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the main idea but does not explain the return format, the role of optional parameters, or how the comparison works in detail. Adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps for complex use.

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 description coverage is only 22%, yet the description does not compensate by explaining the undocumented parameters (e.g., competitor_id, only_exists_first_date, show_* flags). It only mentions 'two dates' and the return metrics. The schema itself describes region_index and dates, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond that. Many parameters remain opaque.

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 states the verb (Get), the resource (positions summary), and the context (comparing two dates, for a project and single region). It also lists the specific return content (keyword distribution, optional dynamics, tops, averages, visibility metrics), distinguishing it from related tools like topvisor_get_history or topvisor_check_positions.

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 its usage for comparing two dates and retrieving summary metrics, which is enough to understand the basic intent. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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