top_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it explains how the previous period is automatically calculated, describes the return format (ranked items with counts and changes), and mentions support for filtering. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and return format, the second adds behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality, return format, and key behavioral aspects like period calculation. However, it could improve by detailing output structure more explicitly or addressing potential limitations, leaving minor 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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implicitly referencing parameters like 'groupBy', 'direction', and 'subscription' without providing additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Find top N accounts or groups with highest visit/usage increase or decrease'), identifies the resource ('accounts or groups'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on ranking by change between periods rather than general metrics or breakdowns. It explicitly mentions what it returns, making the 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 implies usage for analyzing changes in visits/usage over time, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_visit_trends' or 'get_usage_summary'. It mentions filtering by subscription tier, which provides some context, but lacks clear guidance on scenarios or exclusions compared to sibling tools.

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