completion_count_over_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the aggregation unit (year), date field (end dates), and outcome split, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, permissions needed, response format, or pagination. Basic but minimally adequate.

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?

Single sentence with clear action and result. Front-loaded with purpose, no superfluous words. Earns its place effectively.

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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers the core function. However, it lacks details on response structure and how to specify source (URL vs path), which would aid usability. Slightly incomplete but not severely.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides (source, sponsor_type, start_year, end_year). No syntax, valid values, or examples are given.

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 the tool returns yearly completed podling counts split by outcome, with specific verb 'return' and resource 'yearly completed podling counts'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'graduated_podlings_by_year' and 'completion_rate_over_time' by specifying the split and aggregation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any constraints, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria like date range limitations or when count vs rate is appropriate.

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