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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the 5000-tick retention bound, the bounded ring behavior implied by the schema, and stride thinning. However, it does not describe the output format, ordering, or whether any side effects occur, so it is only partially transparent.

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 sentences, with the core fetch behavior front-loaded and the usage heuristic following compactly. The rhetorical closing question adds analytical flavor but does not bloat the definition significantly.

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 covers purpose, retention, and stride, and the schema handles parameter constraints. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify what fields or shape the 'metrics series' returns, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to consume the result.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with clear semantics. The tool description adds the idea of thinning via stride and the notion of tick ranges, but it does not meaningfully go beyond the parameter descriptions already present.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('metrics series over past ticks'), and useful scope details ('last 5000', optional stride). The phrase 'This is the tool for locating transitions' gives it a distinct identity among siblings like flock_get and flock_step.

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 explicitly frames when to use the tool: for locating transitions, with a concrete heuristic about polarization changing fastest in a narrow band of ticks. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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