cc_dynamics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral insight: one crawl is noisy, trend is not, and last_n=0 fetches all available crawls at higher cost. It does not describe output details, but an output schema exists, which reduces the need for that.

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 extremely concise: two lines plus one usage note. Every sentence adds value—purpose, trend guidance, and special parameter meaning—with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, parameter semantics, and cost behavior. It is fully self-contained enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains last_n as the number of recent crawls and explicitly documents last_n=0 behavior and cost. The domain parameter is self-explanatory from the name, so the partial coverage is adequate.

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 identifies the tool as showing domain indexing dynamics over the last N crawls, and adds that it is the main tool for drawing conclusions (trend vs. single-crawl noise). This differentiates it from siblings like cc_crawls, though it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It provides clear usage context: use this tool to observe trends because a single crawl is noisy. It implies a distinction from sibling tools and mentions the cost of last_n=0, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it does not meet the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' criteria.

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