feedback

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly implies a read-only operation. It adds behavioral context by mentioning 'routes fixes,' but this is vague and could be misinterpreted as a write action. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key action. It is efficient and contains no fluff, though it could be slightly expanded for clarity.

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 one parameter, high schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations present, the description is adequate but brief. It doesn't explain return values or how 'routes fixes' works, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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% for the single parameter 'market_name.' The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only states the tool's purpose without clarifying how the parameter maps to that purpose.

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 states a specific action: 'diagnoses performance issues and routes fixes.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose as a feedback loop for optimization. However, it could be more precise about what 'routes fixes' means, and it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'funnel_optimize' or 'market_intel'.

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 implies usage when diagnosing performance issues and routing fixes, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'funnel_optimize' or 'research.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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