estimate_ctr_potential

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses copywriting heuristics, assigns a 0–100 score, classifies into High/Medium/Low, and provides feedback, which conveys the approximate, read-only nature of the operation.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey the return format. It does: score, classification, and feedback. However, it omits potential limitations or edge-case behavior, but the overall purpose and output are sufficiently described given the schema richness.

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 100%, with descriptions for 'titles', 'niche', and 'regionCode'. The tool description does not add further detail about parameters, but it does mention the limit of 5 titles (matching maxItems). Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Estima') and clearly defines the resource ('CTR potencial de até 5 títulos candidatos'). It also details the scoring and classification output, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_title_patterns or suggest_hook_angles.

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 implies the tool is used when an agent has 1-5 candidate titles to evaluate for CTR potential, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. The context is clear, but no alternatives are given.

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