benchmark_evaluations

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by explicitly noting the response structure's wrapper key ('totals' plural) and differing per-month keys between total and addon levels. This is valuable context for correct parsing and aligns 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?

The description is detailed but front-loaded with purpose and return structure. It includes a spec link and important structural notes. While not overly verbose, it could be slightly more concise without losing key information. Still efficient for the complexity.

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 4 optional params, no output schema, and reporting complexity, the description fully details the return structure with field names and nesting. It also links to the full API spec. No critical gaps identified, making it 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% with good descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds marginal value by noting that productId works despite not being in the HAL template, and that hosting/aggregation is ignored. This extra nuance justifies a score above 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides 'Evaluations benchmark vs. ecosystem, per month.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the detailed return structure adds clarity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'benchmark_sales' and 'evaluations_by_metric' by focusing on benchmark evaluations.

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 mentions filtering by addon/productId and that hosting/aggregation is ignored, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on exclusions or when-not-to-use. Usage is implied through context but not articulated.

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