Compare multiple domains side-by-side

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing parallel fetching, leaderboard ranking, and non-blocking error handling. No contradiction with annotations (readOnly, idempotent). This fills gaps that annotations alone do not cover.

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 well-structured sentences: first states core functionality, second adds critical fault-tolerance behavior. No redundant words.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently hints at return format (leaderboard with errors). All six parameters are covered in schema; description adds behavioral context (parallel, non-blocking). Complete for its complexity level.

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%, and the description does not add new meaning beyond what schema descriptions already provide. The mention of 'chosen metric' is echoing the sort_by enum. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('per-domain performance'), and highlights the unique parallel leaderboard aspect, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like grips_get_domain_performance (single domain) and grips_get_daily_performance (daily data).

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 usage for comparing multiple domains side-by-side, and the fault-tolerance note ('one thin or unknown domain won't block') provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives.

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