survival_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—that this tool will not perform the expected ranking and instead returns an 'honest not_supported result'—and gives pointers to alternatives. It doesn't detail the exact shape of the not_supported result, but the warning is significant and trustworthy.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main promise is front-loaded, and the limitation plus escape hatch follow immediately. Slightly more detail on the alternatives could push it to 5, but it is already tight and useful.

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?

Complete for a tool that is essentially a guard against a known limitation: the agent knows when it works, when it won't, and what to call instead. No output schema is needed because the primary outcome is the not_supported signal, which is fully explained.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the purpose ('category ranking') and the intended resource, but adds no extra syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('ranked survival profile') plus a precise resource (CATEGORY) and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling lookups. It also tells the agent what it is NOT (free HTTP API category ranking) and what it returns instead (honest not_supported result with pointers to alternates).

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?

Explicitly says when category ranking is unavailable (via free HTTP API) and where to go instead (per-entity/org/manifest lookups and CC-BY dumps). This is exactly the kind of conditional routing an agent needs.

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