Mine customer angles

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

The description contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=true by stating that passing brandId 'switches this key's active brand like use_brand', which is a state mutation. Since annotations declare the tool read-only, this is a direct contradiction. The description also adds credit cost, which is useful, but the contradiction is severe and lowers this score to 1.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core action and then using a dash list for the output components. Every sentence provides useful information, but it is somewhat long and could be trimmed without losing meaning. It is efficient and easy to scan, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 description fully explains what the tool returns (a ranked angle bank with tags, quotes, score, and hook) and the input (brandId or active brand). It also notes the credit cost. Since there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of informing the agent about the result structure, and it does so comprehensively.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter brandId (including the 'omit to use the active brand' behavior), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds the nuance about switching the active brand, but that is more of a behavioral side effect than parameter semantics. It does not clarify formats or types beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 states a highly specific purpose: mining ad angles from real customer language across multiple sources, with a detailed output specification (ranked angle bank, tags, proof quotes, score, hook). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling competitor_teardown by naming it explicitly. The verb 'mine' and resource 'customer language' leave no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 tells when to use this tool (for your own brand, with optional brandId) and when not to (for competitors, use competitor_teardown). It also notes the optionality of brandId and the side effect of switching the active brand, giving the agent clear decision criteria without needing to inspect other tools.

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