cache_term_distribution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Show' and mentions 'cached ABA pages', but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what the output looks like, or whether a cache must exist beforehand. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear parameter explanation, and a usage callout. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundnone.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what 'distribution' means and what the expected return value is. It states the purpose and when to use it, but omits details about output format or prerequisites, leaving a noticeable gap for a simple but still underspecified tool.

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 has only a bare 'term' string parameter with no description, so the tool description's 'A category word like 'christmas', 'bulk', 'wedding'' adds meaningful examples and clarifies the expected input. It compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('cached ABA pages'), and explains the scope ('how a product term distributes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cache_aba_pull or cache_status.

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 provides an explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' condition: 'Deciding which ABA page ranges to pull for a specific category.' It gives clear context for when to use it but does not name alternatives or explicitly say 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.