N1Mm Multipliers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates return contents that the output schema already defines. It says nothing about read-only nature, data freshness, auth, or rate limits — no behavioral traits beyond structured data.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the summary line followed by an enumeration of outputs. Efficient, with only mild redundancy against the output schema.

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 simple read query with an output schema and fully documented optional params, the description is largely sufficient. The gap is the absence of any behavioral or safety context, which matters because there are no annotations to cover 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 coverage is 100% with two optional, well-described filters (band, station_name), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no semantics about these filters, which is the expected baseline.

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 resource (contest multipliers) and enumerates what it surfaces — total mults worked, per-band mult grid, spotted unworked mults, value analysis. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like n1mm_contacts or n1mm_bandmap by resource, though it never names them explicitly.

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 conveys what the tool reports but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives — no hint about when to prefer it over n1mm_bandmap or n1mm_performance. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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