get_community_wear_baseline

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the data is cross-tenant and requires Kiln Pro, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how cohort aggregation works, whether community data has privacy constraints, or what the response contains; the plan feature list is irrelevant to invoking this tool.

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 first sentence is front-loaded, but the remaining sentences are subscription marketing ('mid-print edits, and unlimited textures and decorations') and an upgrade URL. That is wasted space in a tool definition and pushes the actual invocation-relevant information out.

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?

This is a three-required-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain inputs and result meaning. Instead it only mentions Pro entitlement and cross-tenant scope, leaving the parameter semantics and output expectations largely unspecified.

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%, and the description does not explain filament_material, nozzle_material, or printer_model. Saying the baseline is 'for a cohort' does not clarify how those three required inputs define the cohort or what values are acceptable.

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 phrase 'cross-tenant community wear baseline for a cohort' identifies the resource and data scope, but it is a noun phrase rather than a clear action statement. It does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as nozzle_wear_status, community_stats, or get_community_insight, and the following marketing copy dilutes the purpose.

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 states an entitlement prerequisite ('Requires Kiln Pro'), but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to wear-related or community-related sibling tools.

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