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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and meets it. It states that this is descriptive data with no recommendation, explicitly covers the missing-reading case instead of returning null/zero, and clarifies that history is free and unmetered.

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 well structured: purpose is front-loaded, followed by prerequisites, optional behavior, and caveats. Each sentence earns its place, though the server-indicator-set and billing details could be trimmed without losing core intent.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficient for correct invocation: it covers the required id, discovery prerequisite, optional history flag, date-range parameters, data semantics, and edge-case behavior. The exact JSON response shape is not described, but that is not necessary for selecting and calling the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the include_history behavior and adds the free/unmetered nuance, but id, to, and from are already fully documented in the schema, so the description adds limited new parameter-level meaning.

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 operation: return the current (or historical) value of a single Aletheia indicator by id, plus its methodology reference. It is specific and distinguishes retrieval from discovery by mentioning list_gavel_indicators, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling getters like get_mvrv or get_yield_curve.

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 gives concrete usage direction: call list_gavel_indicators first to discover valid ids, and set include_history to request the historical series. It does not enumerate when to prefer sibling tools, but the prerequisite plus indicator-specific scope provides clear context.

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