Flip history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is derived from on-chain Acquired events (or matching published history), returns aggregated hold info, and definitively states there is no read count. These details are not present in the annotations or schema.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: what the list contains, where it is derived from, and the demand-signal interpretation. There is no filler or repetition of schema info.

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 tool has only one self-documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It states the data source, ordering, included statistics, and the absence of read count, all an agent would need to invoke it 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 schema covers the single limit parameter completely with description, default, max, and constraints. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, but because schema coverage is 100%, the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List who has held the billboard'), names the exact data returned (holder, price, hold duration), and specifies the sort order (newest first). It also differentiates the tool from siblings by framing it as historical demand-signal data rather than a read-billboard operation, and explicitly notes there is no read count.

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 does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but it gives clear usage context by stating that the tool provides the only demand signals (turnover and hold duration) and explicitly excludes read count. This signals the agent that it should be used for acquisition history/demand analysis, not for read metrics, though it stops short of naming read_billboard as the alternative.

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