aps_compute_data_axis_weights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details: empty input returns empty array, all-zero raw weights cause an error, output uses 6-digit decimal strings, weights sum to ~1.0, and the exact formula (role × recency_decay × length_weight) normalized per spec BUILD-B.

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 compact and dense: three sentences cover purpose, output, edge cases, formula, spec reference, and SDK naming. Every sentence earns its place and the information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description gives a complete picture: input types, output format, normalization target, error condition, formula reference, and a downstream consumer. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 100%, so parameters are already described in structured data. The description adds value by explaining the weight formula, the default profile behavior, and that parameter names align with the SDK, which helps an agent understand how the parameters interact.

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 ('Compute') and clearly identifies the resource ('D-axis fractional weight vector'), input type (AccessReceipt records), and output (DataAxisEntry[]). It also ties the output to a downstream sibling (aps_construct_attribution_primitive), which helps distinguish it from other computation tools.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by stating the input requirements and that the result 'feed[s] directly into aps_construct_attribution_primitive.' It also conveys context like empty/all-zero edge cases, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for other axes.

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