demo_analyze

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: free, 300 char limit, no URL support, caching, return structure. This is thorough for a simple tool.

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?

Well-structured with sections, bullet points, and examples. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. The length is appropriate for the content.

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?

Despite no annotations and a single parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, limitations, alternatives, caching, and return fields. It is complete for both human and agent understanding.

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 has 0% coverage (no description for 'text'), but the description fully explains the parameter: type (string), purpose, max length (300 chars), and provides two examples. This compensates completely.

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 it runs a free competitive intelligence analysis on a short text description, specifying the resource (text analysis), verb (run analysis), and scope (free, 300 chars). It also distinguishes from siblings like analyze_competitor (paid, URLs) and batch_analyze.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (free, short texts) and when not to use (URLs, longer texts), with clear alternatives (analyze_competitor, batch_analyze). It also mentions caching and payment requirements.

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