Aggregate GTM Signals

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable transparency beyond that: it notes the tool 'requires an APIFY_TOKEN and consumes Apify credits per call', which are important behavioral traits. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences long, each sentence adding essential information: core purpose, what it runs and returns, and read-only/auth/credit requirements. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no unnecessary words.

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 the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the composite output, mentions the two signals combined, and clarifies auth and cost. The description covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 the schema already fully describes the three parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond stating the output includes a composite score and optional summary, which indirectly relates to the boolean parameters. No extra semantic detail is provided.

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 aggregates GTM signals into a composite score, specifying the verb 'aggregate' and resource 'GTM signals'. It also distinguishes itself by noting it runs both hiring-signal and tech-stack detection in a single call, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to aggregate GTM signals) and includes important caveats: it is read-only, requires an APIFY_TOKEN, and consumes credits. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but there are no sibling tools, so the guidance is adequate.

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