pnov_benchmark

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that data is 'aggregated, anonymous' (useful privacy/provenance context) and weekly in granularity. It says nothing about return shape, whether ranges are per-carrier/per-week, or how the benchmark is computed.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, and the 'typical weekly ranges' scope is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the undefined acronym makes the lead harder to parse than it should be.

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 is the only source of return information; 'typical weekly ranges' hints at the payload but doesn't specify units, percentile bounds, or time basis. For a simple no-arg lookup that may be enough, but it's thin.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description doesn't misleadingly imply any inputs.

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?

States the resource (typical weekly ranges for lost / potential-not-on-van packages) but never uses a verb and never expands the 'pnov' acronym, so the agent must infer both the action and the domain. The subject matter is distinct from siblings, but that differentiation is incidental rather than stated.

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 indication of when to call this versus dsp_thresholds, return_budget, or explain_metric, and no mention of prerequisites or intended callers. The agent is left to guess the use case.

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