idea_evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: it explains that genre None is inferred from competitors, that ai_needed includes a heuristic plus a claude_assessment field, and that a name is selected from name_candidates. It still omits safety-relevant behavior such as whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, and whether it has side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is a single dense sentence, which suits a complex tool. However, it is a run-on list that spends most of its length enumerating output fields that an existing output schema already covers, reducing efficiency.

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 zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and a rich sibling ecosystem, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains many return-bundle contents but provides no usage routing, weak parameter semantics, and no safety or side-effect context.

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% for five parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for genre (inferred from competitors) and name_candidates (first available name is selected from them), and mentions term indirectly, but country and leaders are not explained and term is never defined as the input search term.

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 produces an evidence bundle to rank one idea and lists the specific evidence components, so the resource and scope are understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling evaluators such as aso_niche_score, aso_fetch_competitors, or idea_harvest.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies usage by saying it ranks one idea in any category, which is insufficient guidance for selecting it among many sibling tools.

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