Builder Intelligence: builders & categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it warns that '7d new users' comes from a different dataset than the leaderboard's and user_series', and instructs the agent to state which source it quotes — a data-provenance caveat that prevents incorrect cross-tool comparisons.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields before the routing and provenance notes. No filler; each sentence carries 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 compensates by listing the returned fields and the categories list, and it covers chaining to detail/summary plus the cross-dataset caveat. Pagination and filtering are fully documented in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents limit, fields, offset, search, sortBy, category and includeCategories, including the total_revenue default and the enum. The description adds only the indirect point that 'ids feed detail' and 'category ids feed summary', which is chaining rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the exact resource (the /builder-intelligence index) and enumerates the fields returned for each builder (id, name, category, users, revenue/volume, 7d new users) plus categories. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings flowscan_builder_intelligence_detail and flowscan_builder_intelligence_summary, which it explicitly names.

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?

Explicitly steers the agent: 'Prefer this for user-status/retention questions,' and explains that returned ids feed detail while category ids feed summary, giving concrete chaining guidance. It does not, however, state when this tool should NOT be used versus the many other builder siblings (leaderboard, dashboard, lookup).

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