recent_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scanning logic, limits, flags (baseline_thin), and the meaning of baseline_count, but does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. The absence of any read-only/safety disclosure is a notable gap for a query-like 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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then details the logic. It is appropriately sized, though jargon-heavy, and every sentence adds functional value.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and output flags, but it does not specify the output format beyond the baseline_thin flag, nor how top affects results. For a specialized tool without an output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains days and baseline_days (including upper limits) and references baseline_count, but does not explain the top parameter or its role. It adds partial meaning but misses one of three parameters.

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 identifies new formulations that have warmed up or appeared recently relative to a baseline period, and it mentions the use case (prediction signal scanning). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic search, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'scan'.

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?

It provides a clear context ('used for signal scanning before prediction') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like phrase_trend or search. No exclusions or alternative routing guidance is given.

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