scan_market_radar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'read-only' and explains the behavior of the 'live' parameter (online vs offline). This provides useful transparency beyond the schema, though more details (e.g., caching, auth, limits) could enhance it.

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 well-structured with a headline sentence followed by parameter descriptions and return type. It is concise (approx. 120 words) and avoids redundancy. Could be slightly more compressed, but it's effective.

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 4 parameters, no nested objects, and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and return format. It omits error handling and detailed interpretation of results, but for a tool with these properties, it is adequately complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for each parameter: workspace (path), goal (topic), limit (max signals), live (online/offline). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Surface launch directories and developer discussions matching a project goal.' It uses a specific verb ('Surface') and resource ('launch directories and developer discussions'), and distinguishes itself from similar siblings like 'scan_research_radar' by focusing on market signals.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'identify user objections, maker positioning, and market feedback.' It also notes it's read-only. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, the purpose is sufficiently distinct from siblings.

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