veroq_alt_attention

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost (1 credit) and return values (pageview counts, trend direction, percentile ranking). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or rate limits, but the nature ('pageview-based interest signal') implies a safe retrieval operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise—three short sentences plus structured sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear formatting. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies exactly what is returned (pageview counts, trend direction, percentile ranking), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output. It also mentions cost and data source (Wikipedia). For a simple single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is 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 already provides a comprehensive description for the sole parameter 'entity' with examples ('NVIDIA, Elon Musk, Bitcoin'). The tool description only repeats the example and does not add semantic nuance beyond what the schema offers. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a 'Wikipedia attention score' based on pageviews, specifying the resource (entity) and the signal type (interest). It distinguishes from sibling tools like veroq_alt_yields or veroq_alt_cot by focusing on public interest measurement, making the purpose unique.

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?

Includes an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section: 'To gauge public interest... based on Wikipedia traffic. Spikes in attention often precede or accompany market moves.' This provides clear context and triggers. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, which would raise it to a 5.

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