Get Feature Exposure

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the data is aggregated, anonymized, and includes correctness rates. This helps the agent understand what kind of information to expect. It does not describe pagination or exact response structure, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a succinct use case without unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is returned, how it is scoped, and why an agent would use it. It could be slightly stronger by distinguishing itself from sibling reporting tools, but nothing essential 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 input schema already thoroughly documents both parameters: limit and featureKey. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: aggregated feature exposure data with per-feature view counts and correctness rates. It effectively describes the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast it with similar reporting siblings like cl_coverage_report or cl_get_error_patterns.

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 states a clear use case: 'Useful for finding undertaught or poorly-performing features.' This gives an agent explicit context for when to invoke the tool. It does not provide exclusions or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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