dante.query_street_friction

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 mentions tenant isolation and the data domain, but it does not describe search behavior, permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return characteristics. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the core action, data source, and signal categories.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an incomplete schema description coverage, the description should provide more context about result format, search behavior, and parameter usage. It identifies the data domain but leaves too much unspecified for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 description does not mention any of the three parameters. Schema description coverage is only 67%, and the voice_filter parameter has no schema description at all. The description therefore fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('isolated tenant intelligence vault'), and lists the kinds of signals it can find. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like dante.run_audit or the geo-focused tools.

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 usage by naming the content types (complaints, irony/sarcasm signals, bot anomalies, market gaps), but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to the sibling tools. An agent would have to infer when this tool is preferable to dante.run_audit or others.

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