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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine non-annotated context: the archive begins 2026-10-29, so earlier 'since' values cannot be satisfied, and it outlines what the response contains (per-radar peak/low, checked outcomes, daily sensor digests). It says nothing about response size or pagination for a potentially large date window.

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 scope statement is front-loaded and zero-waste, but the rest is a single long sentence with a sprawling parenthetical listing every sensor type. That enumeration conveys payload breadth but costs readability and could be tightened.

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?

With only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so reasonably by naming the included sections. The main residual gap is expected response size for wide date ranges and whether results are capped.

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 coverage is 100%, so 'YYYY-MM-DD' formatting is already documented. The description still adds value by framing the parameters as an inclusive window ('every radar from → to') and by disclosing the 2026-10-29 archive floor, which constrains valid 'since' values in a way the schema does not express.

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 verb and resource — 'what changed on Orb Studio between two dates' — and enumerates the payload (radars, headlines, outcomes, sensor digests, trading experiment), which clearly separates it from point-in-time siblings like get_live or get_radar. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, so the distinction must be inferred from phrasing.

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?

'Memory for agents' plus 'between two dates' implies the retrospective/lookback use case, and the archive start date signals when the tool stops being useful. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_history, get_live, or get_radars guidance, and no stated exclusions.

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