Signal Detection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the six signal types and the meaning of each output field (signal_strength, evidence, etc.). It also clarifies the source parameter's behavior, though it does not describe edge cases or error handling.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a list of detectable signals, output structure, and parameter descriptions. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 two optional parameters and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it detects, what each signal contains, parameter options, and a high-level return format. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description fully explains both parameters in the 'Args' section. For 'source', it enumerates the three options ('auto', 'hubspot', 'sample') with their behaviors. For 'pipeline_id', it states it is optional and for filtering. This completely compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it scans pipeline data for all 6 signal types, listing them explicitly. It specifies the output structure (signal_type, signal_strength, etc.), making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like analyze_engine or propose_gtm_change.

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 when to use (scanning pipeline data for signals) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or mention when not to use. However, the provided context signals (0 required parameters) and the tool's specific scope make its usage clear enough.

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