channel_lens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It describes the output content and notes that partial matches are accepted, revealing relevant behavior. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on no match, or any side effects, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a compact two-sentence statement with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('Inverse view for one channel') and efficiently lists the analytical dimensions, making every word informative.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers its primary function and input characteristics. However, it lacks explicit usage context relative to sibling tools, does not describe the output format or edge cases, and does not clarify what 'inverse' means operationally. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, these omissions leave noticeable gaps.

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?

The schema provides only a required string 'channel' with no description. The description adds significant semantic value by specifying that a partial channel name is acceptable, which informs how the parameter should be used. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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's purpose as an 'inverse view' for a channel, specifying the output dimensions (commonness, stage split, sector usage, companies). It conveys a specific verb and resource, and the 'inverse' framing hints at a different perspective from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_channels or search_evidence. The phrase 'inverse view' implies a distinct use case, but it does not state any exclusions or comparative advantages, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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