Operator concentration ranking

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes far beyond that by disclosing the two-block structure, the exact dates (Dec 31, 2020), the nature of each block (disclosed vs full ranking), example concentrations (Maplewood ≥10%, CommuniCare 7.2%), the difference between largest-by-revenue and largest-by-investment, and the decomposition (lease vs mortgage). This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence conveys essential information: purpose, block structure, examples, and usage warnings. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically explains each block in numbered format. No fillers or redundancies; the length is justified by the tool's 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?

The tool has an output schema (per context), so return format is covered externally. The description covers all necessary operational details: when to use, what the blocks are, specific examples, and usage warnings. The only minor omission is explicit mention of the topN parameter's effect, but that's in the schema. For a read-only ranking tool, this is fully 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 description covers 100% of the single parameter topN, and the description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema explains ('How many FY2020-ranked operators to return'). The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the meaning; the description's mention of two blocks doesn't clarify which block topN applies to (implicitly the FY2020 one).

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 ('ranked by share of total investments') and resource ('Omega's operators'), and immediately clarifies that it returns two distinct blocks with different dates. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly targeting 'top N operators' questions, which is not covered by the other tools like portfolio_overview or operator_facilities.

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 gives an explicit directive: 'Use this for any "top N operators" question', and provides critical usage constraints — 'must not be blended' and 'always report each block's as-of date'. This clearly tells the agent when and how to use it, though it doesn't enumerate alternatives, the explicit use case is sufficient.

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