Arsenkin: result table

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds cost transparency ("free, no new paid calls"), which is genuinely useful and not in the schema, but leaves details like how the table is produced or with what data scope unaddressed.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste; the core capability is front-loaded and supplemented by the usage cue and cost note. Nothing irrelevant is included.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover behavior. However, with 0% schema coverage on 5 params — notably the required 'view' — the description should clarify valid inputs and does not, leaving a real gap.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It hints at a type choice (URL/host frequency vs cluster) that likely maps to the required 'view' param, but names none of job_id, view, format, max_rows, or result_pointer.

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 verb (Build) and resource (SERP URL/host frequency or cluster tables) from a saved result, and distinguishes the output from raw results. An agent can tell this is a table-generation tool rather than a retrieval tool, though it doesn't name a specific sibling.

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?

"Use for reports instead of raw results" gives a clear context of use and implicitly contrasts with raw-result siblings like arsenkin_get_result. It stops short of naming the alternative or listing when-not to use it.

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