Signal Detection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context like scanning for 6 signal types and returning specific fields, but does not reveal additional side effects or limitations beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise yet informative: a clear purpose statement, a bullet list of signals, and structured args/returns. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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 detects 6 signal types with return fields, the description covers the key aspects: what signals, what each signal includes, source options, and return structure. It is fairly complete, especially with an output schema available. Minor missing details like pagination or count limits, but still strong.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so excellently: it details the source parameter (auto vs hubspot vs sample) and pipeline_id as optional filter. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 scans pipeline data for all 6 specific signal types and returns structured findings, with a list of signals. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_engine' or 'qualify', which have different purposes.

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 explains the source parameter options (auto, hubspot, sample) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_engine' or 'score_pipeline_health'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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