visibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what the tool reports—peer/collector reach, upstreams, and sibling ratio—and explains how to interpret those results. It does not fully describe return formatting or side-effect profile, but the core behavior is substantively covered.

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 with a front-loaded clarifying question, a compact list of output areas, and a concrete interpretive example. It is efficient and every sentence contributes meaning, though the conversational tone adds a bit of style over strict operational precision.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves operational gaps. An agent still does not know how to use window or compare_to effectively, or what the exact response shape looks like. The conceptual value is strong, but calling the tool correctly requires more parameter-level guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'this prefix' to the required prefix parameter and 'sibling prefixes' to compare_to, but the window parameter is entirely unexplained. The description does not clarify accepted formats, defaults, or how compare_to should be supplied.

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 identifies the tool as a prefix visibility analysis tool, covering peer/collector reach, upstreams, and a comparative ratio against sibling prefixes. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing ratio-based filtering detection, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 provides clear context: absolute peer counts are meaningless and the ratio against sibling prefixes is the useful signal. This implies when to use the tool, especially for detecting filtered prefixes, though it does not give explicit exclusions or name alternative tools.

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