hotspots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the ranking function but does not disclose output format, pagination, authentication needs, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond purpose.

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 a single 15-word sentence, concise but lacking structure. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but every word could be expanded to include more useful detail without being verbose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the ranking output contains, how results are sorted, or how 'declassified records' are counted. The tool is simple but needs more context for correct use.

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 the 'limit' parameter. The schema provides defaults and bounds, but the description adds no additional meaning or usage context for the parameter.

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 ranks incident locations by the number of declassified records mentioning them, using verb 'rank' and specific metric. It distinguishes from siblings like search functions and stats by focusing on location ranking based on mention frequency.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Usage is implied but not compared to alternatives such as search_sightings or stats. The description assumes the agent will infer context from sibling names.

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