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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the payload contents of a snapshot (risk index plus top headlines), but says nothing about volume, pagination, or retention limits for a potentially large archive query – the main behavioral risk for this tool.

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, no filler, with the scope of the archive stated first and the parameter behavior second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a single optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, payload contents, and the parameter branch. The only material gap is the absence of any note on result volume or limits when the date is omitted.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond the schema by explaining what the optional date actually does: supplying it narrows the result to one day's snapshot. The schema only labels the field 'Optional date' without stating the default behavior when omitted, which the description supplies.

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 names a specific resource ('Archive of Orb Studio radars') and specifies the two data shapes available: daily risk index history and full daily snapshots (risk index + top headlines). An agent can tell this is the historical/archive endpoint versus a current-state endpoint. Sibling differentiation is only implicit, via the word 'history' against get_radar/get_radars.

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?

'Pass date (YYYY-MM-DD) to get one day's snapshot' implies the omit-date branch (return the whole archive), which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_radar or get_radars, nor any warning about how much data an unfiltered call returns.

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