podlings_started_over_time

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, if it requires authentication, or if it aggregates across all data. The description is too vague on behavior beyond the basic output.

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 no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Ideal conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should explain return format. It only says 'counts' but not structure (e.g., list of year-count pairs). With 4 optional parameters and many siblings, more detail would be beneficial. Adequate but basic.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters like 'source', 'sponsor_type', 'start_year', 'end_year'. It does not explain how they affect the results.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns yearly podling start counts based on start dates, specifying both the verb ('Return') and the resource ('yearly podling start counts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'active_podlings_by_year' or 'completed_podlings_by_year'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'started_podlings_by_year'. There are many sibling tools for different metrics, but the description gives no context or exclusions.

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