hive_estimate

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the async pending/eta lifecycle, the guarantee that any app resolves, and the credit cost (500 for figures, 1 for a pending answer). That is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned figures, then the async mechanics and cost. Mostly tight, though the rhetorical lines ('Every app gets an answer. Hive already knows them.') spend words on tone rather than information, even if they do signal universal coverage.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does name value/under, status pending, eta, and market count. It stops short of mapping field names to revenue vs downloads explicitly, but an agent has enough to call the tool and interpret both the immediate and follow-up responses.

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 coverage is 100%, with appId (App Store id) and country (storefront the read starts from, default us) both documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail — its `value`/`under` language concerns output, not inputs — so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific output — monthly revenue and downloads for an App Store app, worldwide — plus the exact shape of each figure (`value`, or `under` when below the amount) and market coverage count. An agent can distinguish this from the get_revenue and hive_* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the critical usage flow: the first request starts the read and returns status pending with an eta, so call again after that. It also asserts universal coverage ('Every app gets an answer'). It does not, however, name when to prefer this over get_revenue or other Hive tools, so no exclusions are given.

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