discover_peers

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: mentors are 1-2 class tiers above with similar cascade shapes, peers are same-tier ranked by yield proximity, and complementary operators target weaknesses. This goes beyond what the annotations convey.

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 moderately long but well-structured with numbered categories and concrete examples. The 'Intent: DISCOVER_PEERS' line and the phrase 'Pass a codename' are slightly redundant with the name and schema, but overall every section earns its place.

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?

The combination is complete: the schema explains all parameters, the annotations declare read-only and open-world behavior, the description explains the three output categories and ranking rationale, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not needed. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description including defaults, enum options, and case-insensitivity. The tool description adds context about what the results mean per category, but it does not add meaningfully new information about how to fill the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Discovers mentors, peers, and complementary operators for any operator on the SigRank leaderboard.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_operators and get_best_operator by describing the three output categories rather than generic comparison or ranking.

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 gives explicit trigger phrases: 'who should I learn from?', 'find me a mentor on the leaderboard', and 'who are my peers?', which tells an agent when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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