get_article_effectiveness

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that no new API requests are made, indicating a read-only, historical operation, and describes the report contents. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure, though it lacks details on permissions or error behavior.

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 two concise sentences that immediately state the report's content and the historical, non-mutating nature of the call. Every word adds value, and it is efficiently front-loaded.

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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what the report contains and that it is historical. It does not detail the exact structure of the verdict or delta, but an agent can reasonably infer the expected output. Minor gaps remain, but it is nearly complete for its simplicity.

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?

The sole parameter, project_id, is an integer with a self-explanatory name, and its meaning is clear from the schema even without description text. The description does not add any further explanation, but the parameter is simple enough that the schema name suffices; a baseline 3 is appropriate given the low schema coverage.

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 tool returns a report on blog articles including a verdict, delta, and cannibalization list. It identifies the resource (blog articles) and the specific outputs, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like check_articles, so it falls 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?

The description notes that data comes from history and that no new API requests are made, implying it is a lightweight read-only call. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or context for selection.

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