signallord_get_gauge_history

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying that returns are daily snapshots containing both composite and individual gauge scores, which informs the agent about the response structure.

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 sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, the second describes the return content and use case. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. However, the description lacks details like the meaning of 'gauge scores', any rate limits, or how the 'days' parameter affects the response. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description does not elaborate on any parameters. The two parameters (days and response_format) are defined in the input schema with moderate coverage (50%). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, missing an opportunity to clarify usage or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves historical gauge scores for trend analysis, including daily snapshots of composite and individual scores. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_composite_score' or 'get_gauge_breakdown' that might provide single-point data.

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 advises using this tool to identify regime shifts and score trends over time, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternative tools for other purposes.

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