Search growth reports

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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it states that reading is free (aligning with readOnlyHint) and that the tool returns slugs for read_report. It does not contradict the read-only and non-destructive annotations, and provides extra context about the tool's behavior.

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 compact, delivering usage guidance, parameter explanation, and output purpose in two sentences. It is not overly verbose, but it packs multiple pieces of information into a somewhat long sentence, which slightly reduces conciseness. Still, it remains clear and well-organized.

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 description sufficiently explains the tool's role within the set of siblings (returns slugs for read_report) and covers the input and output essentials. The absence of an output schema is compensated by mentioning the return value (slugs). It lacks details on edge cases but is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 'query' parameter is already well-described in the schema (domain or fragment with examples). The tool description reinforces this by stating 'Searches by domain or name fragment,' which adds clarity without redundancy. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline is 3, but the extra emphasis justifies a 4.

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's purpose: searching for existing reports about growth, traffic, or first users. It explicitly labels itself as a discovery step ('Use this FIRST') and specifies that it returns report slugs for subsequent reading, distinguishing it from other tools like 'read_report'.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'whenever the user asks how a product, competitor or domain grew, got traffic, or found its first users.' It also indicates that this is a preliminary step before reading a report, and mentions the search input type (domain or name fragment), making when-to-use very clear.

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