rank_entities

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It describes the operation (ranking by stage total), explains supported layouts, and notes optional filters and default top_k. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or whether it has side effects, nor does it detail output behavior beyond what's implied.

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 well-structured with sections, front-loading the main action. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy in listing stage values twice.

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 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description covers core functionality well but misses details on parameters like 'filename', 'group_by', and 'top_k'. It provides adequate context for a moderately complex ranking tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'stage' values and optional 'filters' as a dict. It introduces the concept of layouts (wide/long) which maps to group_by, stage_col, and amount_col. However, it does not explain 'filename', 'group_by', or 'top_k' semantics in detail, leaving some gaps.

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 it ranks entities by a finance STAGE total, listing specific stages (pledge, deposit, approval, disbursement). It distinguishes from siblings like rank_by_column and fund_conversion_ratios by specifying the exact resource (entities by stage total) and supported layouts.

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 provides 'When to use' and 'Do NOT use when' sections, listing alternatives for each exclusion case (e.g., rank_by_column, fund_conversion_ratios, filter_funds_by_threshold). This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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