analyze_topic_performance

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly states 'Read-only' and 'Fetches live topic-performances from Medify (includes practice history aggregated by Medify, not only mocks).' Discloses behavior beyond defaults, with no contradictions.

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?

Description is concise with 6 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, parameter details, data source. No redundant information.

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 schema coverage 100% and no output schema, description covers parameters, read-only nature, data source, and sibling context. Lacks output format details (e.g., ranking presentation) but sufficient for selection and invocation.

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% with descriptions for both parameters, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by stating defaults (includeSj false, minN 10) and explaining their effect ('omit Situational Judgement', 'drops sparse subtypes'), which aids agent understanding.

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?

Description clearly states tool ranks UCAT question subtypes by personal accuracy vs population averages, with specific verb 'rank' and resource 'question subtypes'. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it complements analyze_section_performance and analyze_question_timing.

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?

Explicitly says 'Best tool for what should I drill? at the question-type level.' Provides guidance on parameters (includeSj defaults false, minN defaults 10) and mentions complementary tools, giving clear when-to-use and when-not context.

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