market_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Report' clearly implies a non-mutating status read, and the description adds interpretive guidance about interpreting empty history. It does not state side effects or access prerequisites, but for a status tool with zero params the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, first gives the core purpose, second gives high-value usage guidance. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-argument status tool with an output schema present, the description covers what it reports and when to call it. It does not explain how to interpret coverage or budget values, but the output schema likely covers that; it is sufficiently complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description need not add parameter details; the baseline of 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 states a clear verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('collector health, database coverage and remaining rate budget'). This unambiguously identifies what the tool does and separates it from the market-data siblings.

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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: check this before concluding missing data means a missing market, with the reasoning that an empty history often indicates a stopped collector. It doesn't name sibling alternatives, but the diagnostic use case is clear and distinct from the data-fetching siblings.

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