double_texts

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, the description reveals specific output details: 'Shows frequency, longest bursts, and who does it more' and 'global ranking of who you double-text the most'. This gives the agent insight into what kind of analysis and ranking information to expect, which annotations don't 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?

The description is perfectly front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, the second explains the mechanism, and the third clarifies the key usage distinction. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand when and how to use this tool.

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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidance, and output behavior. The main gap is the lack of output format details (what the 'frequency', 'bursts', and 'ranking' actually look like), but with good annotations and clear parameter documentation, this is a minor omission for a read-only analysis tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic context for the 'contact' parameter ('omit for global double-text ranking'), but doesn't provide additional meaning for other parameters beyond what's already in their schema descriptions. The description compensates slightly but not significantly beyond the comprehensive schema documentation.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('detect', 'finds', 'shows') and resources ('double-texting and unanswered message patterns', 'multiple consecutive messages without a reply'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on consecutive message analysis rather than general message stats, contact info, or conversation gaps.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Omit contact for a global ranking of who you double-text the most' gives clear parameter-based usage rules. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'contact_stats', 'message_stats', and 'conversation_gaps' by focusing specifically on consecutive message patterns rather than general statistics or gap analysis.

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