Raw SensorTower GET

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses that auth, token redaction, gzip and retries are handled internally, that calls consume request quota (dry_run charges 0), and that artwork is stripped by default. It stops short of describing error behavior beyond the 422 case or pagination/rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the 'Escape hatch' framing, then behavior, then routing rule, then caveat, then tip. Every sentence adds something an agent needs; no filler or restated schema text.

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 raw passthrough GET with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns ('raw JSON back'), what is handled for you (auth, redaction, gzip, retries), the quota implication of dry_run, and the default payload trimming. Nothing material 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 baseline is 3. The description largely restates what the schema already documents (dry_run, artwork dropping) and only adds the non-obvious hint that a deliberately bogus enum value surfaces valid values via the 422 response.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('any SensorTower path with arbitrary query parameters, raw JSON back') and positions itself explicitly as the 'escape hatch' for the ~50 endpoints lacking a dedicated tool, naming concrete categories (ad creatives, network analysis, churn, cohort retention). An agent can distinguish it from the ~28 sibling tools without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition ('use this for the ~50 endpoints without a dedicated tool'), an explicit exclusion ('Do NOT pass auth_token'), and a discovery tactic for enum values via the 422 body. When-to-use, when-not-to, and the alternative (dedicated tools) are all stated.

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