Analyze Key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses little: it names the Krumhansl estimation method but says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, side effects, or defaults. It adds the algorithm detail but leaves the operational profile unspecified.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; scope and method are packed efficiently with zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the terse sentence leaves gaps: the required 'project' parameter and any permission/default behavior are undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for two parameters: 'source' (the whole source to analyze) and 'bars' (a range given as [a, b]), but the required 'project' parameter is never mentioned.

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+resource ('Key estimate') and scopes it to 'the whole source or bars [a, b]', naming the Krumhansl algorithm. This clearly differentiates it from other analyze_* siblings in intent, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied via the scope clause 'over the whole source or bars [a, b]', which tells the agent it can target either the full source or a bar range. There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool named.

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