rapid_test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict these. It adds that the tool combines research, landing page, and ads, but does not provide additional behavioral traits like permissions or rate limits beyond what annotations offer.

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, clear sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and components, earning 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?

Given the tool has three parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does. However, it could be improved by briefly indicating what the output format is (e.g., a report), but overall it is sufficient for agent invocation.

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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (idea, budget, duration_days). The description does not add any further meaning or examples beyond what is already in the schema, baseline score 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's verb (test) and resource (idea), and specifies the compressed components: research, landing page, ads. This distinguishes it from siblings like creative_test or rapid_check, which focus on different aspects.

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 for quick idea testing by mentioning 'compressed' and 'single pass', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like creative_test or rapid_check. No exclusions or context are provided.

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