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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions cost ($0.02) and row count (417k+), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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, using only two sentences to convey essential information. It is front-loaded with the most critical details (cadence, time range, cost, constraints) and contains no filler or redundant text.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain the output structure (e.g., fields in each regime snapshot) and leaves one parameter ('payment_signature') undocumented. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage and results.

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 description adds meaning for three parameters (start, end, limit) by specifying ISO timestamp format and a maximum limit of 10000. However, the 'payment_signature' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its purpose unclear. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 indicates this tool returns historical regime snapshots with a specific cadence (5-min) and time range (since 2026-02). The name 'get_regime_history' and sibling tools like 'get_regime_current' further reinforce its purpose, though the exact nature of a 'regime snapshot' could be more explicit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_regime_current' or 'get_regime_sample'. The description states constraints (start/end timestamps, limit) but lacks when-not-to-use or scenario-based recommendations.

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