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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the safety and behavior burden. It explicitly discloses response fields (verified, expected, actual_value, delta_pct), explains the null semantics for verified, and details the anonymous rounding/delay limitation. This is thorough and adds significant context beyond the 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 front-loaded and every sentence adds necessary information—purpose, usage, response details, null semantics, and anonymous limitations. It is slightly longer than the minimal two-sentence example but remains dense and avoids redundancy, earning a high score with a minor deduction for length.

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 no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does so comprehensively. It covers the tool's purpose, both usage modes, edge cases (null verified), and anonymous limitations. For a tool with this complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent 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 already provides 100% parameter descriptions. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the dual behavior of the optional value parameter (check vs. plain lookup) and providing concrete examples for both params. This goes beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline.

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: 'Check a FLOPS index value against the published index.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools (get_index, get_price, list_indices, search_indices) by focusing on verification rather than simple retrieval or listing.

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 gives clear usage scenarios: pass a value to verify it, omit value to look up the current published value. It also warns about anonymous limitations. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the mode distinction is clear, so this is slightly below the highest bar.

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