analyze_score_trends

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, explains that cognitive total excludes SJ, and mentions cache metadata in returns. This is thorough, though it could mention potential rate limiting or caching effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then parameter explanations. Every sentence is essential and no fluff.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers inputs, behavior, and return content (analysis plus cache metadata). However, it is slightly vague on the exact output format (e.g., chart vs text), which could be clarified.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'kind' filters mock types (full/mini/all) and 'forceRefresh' reloads from Medify, providing context beyond the schema.

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 analyzes personal Medify UCAT mock score trends over time, including cognitive totals, per-section averages, best/worst sits, and comparisons. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools, making its purpose unique.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for score trends, improvement, or history chart) and when not to use it (for subtype drills or timing analysis), naming specific alternative tools.

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