Submit a signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses dedup (by external_url) and alert threshold (confidence >=0.8), which are key behaviors. But it omits return details and error handling, essential for a creation tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds distinct value (action, drafts, alerting, preference). No wasted 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?

For a tool with 13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core behavior but lacks return type, error behavior, and integration hints with sibling tools.

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 coverage is high (85%), and the description adds operational context for parameters like external_url (dedup) and confidence (alerting). This enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 submits a buy-signal/lead, with dedup by external_url, and distinguishes it from retrieval/update tools. The verb 'Submit' and resource 'signal' are specific, and it adds context like dedup, avoiding tautology.

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 a clear guideline: 'Prefer one call per signal over writing brief files', hinting at best practices. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, leaving some gap.

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