trades_runtime_cite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does notable work: it declares the operation read-only, states the data lives only on the operator machine, asserts the Worker holds no tenant data, and admits it was not tested against a live tenant. That provenance and safety context is genuinely beyond structured fields, though it omits any note on data freshness, size, or caching.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentence is a bloated enumeration of internal modules and seventeen named vendor peers that consumes most of the description. The list conveys content, yet the same information would be better served by the response itself, and it crowds out usage guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize the return value, and it does describe the local_package structure and the peer entries' fields (mode, mappingConfidence) reasonably well. It stops short of a full shape description, but the disclosure of scope, safety, and provenance is sufficient for a zero-parameter read.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema (empty object, additionalProperties false) already fully defines the call and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names a specific resource ('cite.json for Trades-Runtime') and enumerates its contents (local_package modules plus platform peers with mode/mappingConfidence), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools (health, skill, stats), leaving the agent to infer the difference from the resource name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus trades_runtime_health, trades_runtime_skill, or trades_runtime_stats, and no prerequisites or exclusions. 'Public' and 'Read-only' imply a safe inspection call, but the agent receives no routing guidance at all.

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