find_spend_signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not that this is a read-only query, not that it is scoped to a research run, not whether results are paginated or ranked. An output schema exists, so return shape is covered, but the tool's operational behavior is undocumented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the defining criteria for a spend signal are stated up front. Efficient, though the terseness leaves real content gaps rather than being optimally informative.

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?

For a tool in a large sibling family with a required run_id, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the one-line description is not sufficient. It omits how to obtain run_id, how this differs from find_signals, and the meaning of limit, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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 0% across two parameters (run_id, limit), and the description mentions neither. It does not explain that run_id scopes the search to a specific research run or what limit does. This is a clear case of the description failing to compensate for an uncovered 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?

States a specific verb (find) and a specific resource (spend signals), and even defines the semantic category: willingness to pay or commercial loss. This distinguishes it from the broader find_signals sibling. However, it never explicitly names which sibling it supersedes or how it differs from find_needs/find_products, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no condition, no prerequisite (e.g. that a run_id must exist from create_research/step_research), and no routing to alternatives like the general find_signals. The agent must infer everything from the name and the sibling list.

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