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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are capped at 3 items — but says nothing about whether filters (since, before, limit) are honored, ignored, or truncated in sample mode, which matters when limit allows up to 200.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste and the 'Free' qualifier first. It is arguably too terse for an 8-parameter tool, but nothing in it is 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 8 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description leaves major gaps: the return shape of the sample is undisclosed and the relationship to imd_feed is unstated. An agent could pick this tool but would not know how far its output can be trusted for filtering.

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 only 38%, so the description needs to compensate and largely doesn't. It restates the endpoint enum that the schema already documents, but says nothing about kind, chain, status, since/before polling semantics, or how limit interacts with the fixed 3-item cap.

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 action and scope: a 3-item sample of any IMD Data Feed endpoint, with the endpoint families enumerated in parentheses. The word 'sample' plus '3-item' implicitly separates it from the full imd_feed sibling, though that contrast is never made explicit.

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 leading 'Free:' implies this is for trial/exploration rather than production data, but the description never says when to call this instead of imd_feed, nor whether the sample reflects the same shape/behavior. Usage must be inferred from the word 'sample' alone.

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