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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states the tool returns live epoch info and an ETA, but it does not disclose side effects, freshness guarantees, or output structure. Some behavior is described, but not comprehensively.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrasing is a bit awkward in 'dual measured slot-rates labeled', but it remains compact and easy to scan.

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 is relatively simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description gives a basic sense of the output—epoch info, ETA, and dual labeled rates—but lacks precise response details or edge-case behavior. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 fully describes the rate parameter and its allowed values. The description adds little beyond the schema, only slightly clarifying that the chosen rate drives the ETA. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 the tool as providing live epoch information and an ETA to epoch end, with a specific focus on dual measured slot-rates. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains the optional rate parameter but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any sibling tools, nor when to choose 'primary', 'alt', or 'both' rates. Usage context is largely left to inference.

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