Builder Intelligence: deep-dive for one builder

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so this description earns credit on top of that by disclosing the ~11 MB payload size, the paging behavior (50 top-level, 20 nested), and that address lists are reshaped to {count, sample}. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent needs to avoid blowing up its context window.

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 sentence order is sensible: what the report contains, then the size/sections caveat, then paging and list reshaping. It is dense but mostly earns its words; the long enumeration of report contents in sentence one could be trimmed since `sections` already lists them.

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 read-only report tool with no output schema, the description covers the important gaps: what comes back, how large it is, how to shrink it, and how lists are paged/reshaped. Safety is covered by annotations. An agent has enough to call it correctly without guessing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it names example builderId values ('phantom', 'pvp'), confirms the default section set, and quantifies paging as 50 top-level / 20 nested. These details are not fully present in the schema text.

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 resource (a /builder-intelligence report for one builder) and enumerates its content: user status, revenue, cohorts, lifecycle, retention, daily activity, top users, heatmap. It also points to the sibling flowscan_builder_intelligence_list as the source of builderId, helping separate it from list/summary variants. The purpose is clear, though the opening sentence is more a content dump than a crisp verb+resource statement.

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 operational guidance (payload is ~11 MB, so narrow with `sections`; results are paged) and notes where builderId comes from. It does not, however, say when to use this tool versus flowscan_builder_intelligence_summary or the dashboard, leaving that routing choice to inference.

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