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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful semantic transparency by defining what the index measures, how status thresholds map to percentiles, and what the family-level comparisons represent.

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 a single dense sentence packed with nested parenthetical definitions, which makes it hard to scan. It is not repetitive, but its structure could be improved by breaking the content into shorter, front-loaded statements.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to document return structure in full. It nevertheless supplies rich semantic context for the index, statuses, rankings, and family comparisons, leaving only explicit sibling-routing guidance as a notable 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion about inputs.

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 identifies a specific resource: the current week's Antevo Tremor Index, including its components and status. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_tremor_history or get_tremor_pairs, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'This week's' implies this tool is for the latest weekly snapshot rather than historical data or pair-level breakdowns. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_tremor_history, get_tremor_breaks, or get_tremor_pairs.

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