Explain a Bubble

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the return contents (timeline, pain points, opportunities, verified sources), which is useful behavioral context especially with no output schema. No contradiction exists with the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first and then lists the return items. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the primary behavior and explicitly lists what is returned, which is important because there is no output schema. It could be more complete by pointing to sibling tools or clarifying the parameter, but overall it is sufficient for basic use.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the bubble_id parameter or explain how to specify which Bubble to explain. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but since the schema provides no description, the tool description should compensate; it does not, leaving the mapping from 'a Bubble' to bubble_id implicit.

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 uses a specific verb 'Explain' and names the resource 'Bubble' along with concrete outputs (timeline, pain points, opportunities, verified sources). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bubbles or search_bubbles that likely list or find bubbles rather than explain a single one.

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 the tool is for deep-diving into a specific bubble's growth story, which gives a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_bubbles, search_bubbles, or compare_bubbles, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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