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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the computed output metrics, which is meaningful beyond the schema, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, default date-range behavior when from/to are omitted, or pagination.

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, both earning their place: the first defines the operation and output, the second routes the agent to the correct sibling. Front-loaded with the core purpose and zero filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully summarizes what the analysis returns (success rate, hours with data, coverage %, avg snapshots/day). It is close to complete, though it omits behavior when the zero required params (from/to) are not supplied.

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 description coverage is 100% and all four parameters are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'per provider+symbol' grouping hint, not format or default semantics for the optional filters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Analyze feed data-delivery reliability over a date range') and enumerates the exact metrics produced (success rate, hours with data, coverage %, avg snapshots per day). It explicitly differentiates itself from the two nearest siblings, get_feed_health and get_latency.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('assess how completely a feed delivered data over time') and names alternatives with the distinguishing condition for each — get_feed_health = point-in-time status, get_latency = speed. An agent can select this tool without opening any sibling schema.

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