compute_search_velocity_v2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the scoring formula, the internal derivation of trendNorm, the peak<50 zeroing behavior, and the exponential freshness decay. This goes well beyond a generic 'computes a score' statement, though it does not describe the exact return shape or edge-case handling.

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 efficient, opening with the formula and then delivering the most critical usage caveat in an attention-grabbing 'CRITICAL' marker. Every sentence contributes operational information; the only minor issue is that the caveats run together in a fairly long paragraph rather than being cleanly separated.

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?

For a computational scoring tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is quite complete: it covers the formula, normalization source rules, derived trend behavior, and optional decay. It does not explain the exact output structure or any validation/error behavior, but the 0-25 range and compute-only nature make the missing pieces less critical.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: formula weights, cross-parameter relationships, source restrictions for externalVolumeNorm, the trend floor threshold, and the 90-day decay half-life. This gives an agent actionable meaning beyond the schema fields themselves.

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 a specific operation: compute search velocity on a 0-25 scale using a weighted formula. It names the resource (search velocity) and the exact inputs, so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling compute_search_velocity, relying on the 'v2' and 'canonical' wording to imply distinction.

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 gives strong operational guidance: externalVolumeNorm must come from external sources and must not come from the Trends timeline, with a concrete double-counting rationale. It also explains when the trend component is zeroed and how the optional decay parameter behaves. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools or explicitly stating 'use this when...', but the context is clear.

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