Account triage

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavioural context: the scoring inputs (near-copies, bursts, link-only posting), that missing profile/follow/relay lists add but never flag alone, that quiet authors are only counted, that established signs lower the score, and that it performs extra lookups on top candidates. These are meaningful operational traits an agent cannot infer from the schema or 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 core purpose is front-loaded and the dense parentheticals all carry scoring-relevant information rather than filler. It is somewhat run-on and could be broken into shorter sentences, but no sentence is expendable.

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 heuristic scoring tool with five fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, the interpretation caveats, and the lookups it triggers. It stops short of describing the returned structure (e.g. what fields accompany each author's score/reason), which would help since no output schema exists.

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 100%, so all five parameters (top, hours, kinds, relay, sampleLimit) are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description adds only a soft hint about the 'recent window' corresponding to the time filter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists authors in a recent window whose behaviour looks like spam or abuse, with scored reasons. The scope (behavioural signals, highest score first) is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as author_report or trust_score, so it stops 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?

Usage is implied through 'A triage aid, not a verdict' and the note that missing data alone never flags an author, which frames how to read the output. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no alternative sibling (author_report, trust_score) is named for the adjacent questions an agent might have.

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