genius.find_best

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (ranked archetypes with explanations) and implicitly that this is a read-only lookup, but says nothing about rate limits, auth needs, latency, or result staleness.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the distinguishing output trait and a concrete call example. No filler; each sentence adds distinct information.

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?

With no output schema the description correctly covers the return shape, which is helpful. But for a 5-parameter tool it leaves the preset enum and result-set controls unexplained, so an agent cannot fully predict behavior for non-default invocations.

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 60%, and the description reinforces 'concept' and adds syntax for 'language' via the example. It does not explain the 'preset' enum values (battle_tested, modern_active, minimal_dependency, teaching_quality), which are undocumented in the schema and therefore opaque, nor the limit/minStars semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('find the best implementations of a concept across GitHub') and explicitly distinguishes the output from siblings ('Returns ranked archetypes with explanations, not raw search results'), which separates it from github.search_code/github.search_repos.

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 example shows one invocation and implies use when you want curated, ranked implementations rather than raw code hits. However, it never states when to prefer this over github.search_repos or genius.hunt, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so routing is left to inference.

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