Download anomalies

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld). The description adds two things annotations cannot: a flat 15-credit cost and the result ordering ('biggest movers first'), both directly relevant to whether an agent should call this. No contradictions 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?

Two dense sentences with the definition front-loaded and cost appended; every clause earns its place. The parenthetical endpoint reference (GET /market/anomalies) is minor overhead but consistent with the catalog's style.

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?

With no output schema, the description still supplies the ordering of results and the credit cost, which are the main unstated facts an agent needs. It does not describe the shape of a returned row (fields beyond download counts), but for a simple list tool with fully documented parameters this is close to complete.

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% and every parameter carries a description with defaults and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 2x/0.5x thresholds clarify the meaning of the anomaly classes but do not add syntax or format detail for window_days, min_baseline, limit or offset beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3.

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 (models whose downloads spiked or dropped) and quantitatively defines both classes (spike >= 2x, drop <= 0.5x) against a baseline window. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_download_history, which returns raw series rather than anomaly detection.

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 purpose and threshold definitions imply when the tool is appropriate (detecting outliers rather than reading history), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as get_download_history. It also doesn't note that omitting 'kind' returns both classes, leaving that to the schema.

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