hyperscaler_deals

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

The description adds significant behavioral context: it pulls from dchub news pipeline, extracts dollar figures and megawatts via regex, classifies by actor, and refreshes every 10 minutes. This is beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, and there is no contradiction.

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 but comprehensive, front-loading the core purpose and adding relevant detail about data sources and refresh rate. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 lack of output schema, the description does a good job explaining the tool's data sources, refresh frequency, and typical use cases. It covers the essential aspects, though the parameter documentation gap affects completeness.

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 schema has only one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention or explain the limit parameter, leaving its purpose unclear. This is a significant gap.

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 it is a live feed tracking hyperscaler AI deals, naming specific companies and sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its specific focus on AI capex events and competitive intel.

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 says to use for tracking AI capex events, capacity announcements, and competitive intel, providing clear use cases. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the specificity implies alternatives exist for other data.

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