mosaic_emerging_signals

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

The description adds details beyond annotations: it explains the z-score threshold (>2), that it uses simple statistics (no ML), and mentions the 'sparkline' field in the output. Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, so the description enriches behavioral understanding.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief note. Every element adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 existence of an output schema (which likely describes the sparkline and other fields), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, key methodology, and output hint. An agent can confidently use this tool.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (limit, signal_type, window_months). The description adds minimal parameter-specific value, only mentioning 'sparkline' which is not a parameter. Per guidelines, with high schema description coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies targets with recent activity exceeding their baseline (z-score > 2). It specifies the resource (targets with emerging signals) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on statistical surges in literature/patent activity.

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 explicitly says 'Use to spot targets heating up before they crowd,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent.

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