echo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the input message is returned back to the caller, implying a pure echo with no side effects or hidden requirements. It does not detail the exact return format or error handling, but for a trivial echo tool this is sufficient.

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 a single sentence that is concise and to the point, with no redundant or unnecessary content. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool with one fully-documented parameter and no side effects, the description is complete. The return value is obvious from the description, and no output schema is needed. There are no hidden prerequisites or error cases that would require additional explanation.

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 the single parameter 'message' is fully described as 'The message to echo'. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'echoes' and resource 'input message', clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from the sibling trading tools by being a simple utility that returns the input, so there is no ambiguity.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident given the tool name and the context of sibling tools. A hint about using it for testing connectivity or debugging would improve the guidance.

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