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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is descriptive data with no recommendation, that history is free and unmetered, and that a missing reading is stated explicitly rather than returned as null/zero. It omits auth requirements or other access constraints, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Three short paragraphs with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The notes on descriptive data and missing readings earn their place, though the structure could be slightly tighter.

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-indicator lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, discovery workflow, the history option, and the unusual no-reading edge case. It leaves the exact response shape to inference, but overall is complete enough to call 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 schema already documents id, from, to, and include_history. The description reinforces include_history semantics (history instead of current value) but adds no format or syntax detail for the id/from/to parameters, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Returns the current value of a single Aletheia indicator by id, with its methodology reference'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling indicator getters such as get_mvrv or get_yield_curve, leaving the agent to infer the relationship.

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 concrete workflow guidance ('Call list_gavel_indicators first to discover valid ids') and explains the include_history branch to obtain the series instead of the current value. There are no when-not conditions or explicit comparisons against alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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