get_segment_tracker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns counts per day and portfolio, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly declare it as read-only, mention any destructive potential, or detail side effects. Basic transparency but no additional context.

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 two sentences long, with the core purpose in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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 tool has no output schema and 3 parameters, the description adequately explains the output concept (counts per day and portfolio) and usage. It could include details on response format or aggregation, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 100%, so the input schema already describes all three parameters. The description adds a high-level context (counts per day and portfolio) but does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema's descriptions already offer. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool returns bid segment counts per day and portfolio, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('segment counts'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on segment counts and submission status, which is unique among the listed siblings like get_spread_analysis or get_nodal_spread.

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 when to use it: 'Use this when asked about bid activity, segment counts, submission status, or how many bids were placed.' This provides clear context but does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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