anomaly_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description reveals minimal behavioral traits: it compares periods to detect anomalies. It does not disclose statistical method, side effects, rate limits, or output format. For a detection tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence clearly states the tool's purpose without filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks guidance on parameter values, return format, and when to apply, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Only 25% of parameters have schema descriptions (siteUrl), and the main description adds no extra meaning to 'days', 'minLostClicks', or 'limit'. The agent must infer their roles, risking misuse. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 detects anomalies by comparing the latest period to the previous one. The verb 'detect' and resource 'page/query anomalies' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_periods' or 'traffic_drop_diagnosis' by stating what constitutes an anomaly or the type of anomaly.

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 implies usage for detecting anomalies via period comparison, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for broader drops vs. specific anomalies). No exclusions or recommendations given.

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