get_platform_results_by_period

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'SQL widget' and 'templateId: 8' which gives some implementation context, but doesn't describe what type of data is returned, whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, or any limitations. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence with an emoji for visual emphasis. Every element earns its place: the emoji signals reporting/analytics, the core function is stated clearly, and the SQL widget context provides implementation specificity without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'test results' actually means in terms of data structure, doesn't mention return format or typical response content, and provides minimal guidance on parameter usage despite the complex parameter set. The SQL widget reference helps but doesn't compensate for these 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'platform' and 'period' in the main description and references 'templateId' in parentheses, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how parameters interact or typical usage patterns.

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 action ('Get test results') and resource ('by platform for a given period'), with the emoji and SQL widget context adding specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_launches_for_project' or 'get_launch_summary' that might also retrieve test data, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools. It mentions 'SQL widget, templateId: 8' which hints at a specific context, but doesn't explain when this is preferred over other test result retrieval tools or what makes it distinct in usage scenarios.

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