signallord_get_reserve_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns 'current value + band' and 'band_distribution', providing behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose data freshness, caching, or any potential side effects, but no contradictions.

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 concise sentences that front-load the metric definition and then describe the two output modes. No redundancy or unnecessary information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema presence and two parameters (one described in schema), the description covers the metric meaning and output structure. However, it fails to explain how the input parameters affect results (e.g., days, response_format). It mentions 'current' and 'band_distribution' without clarifying they are controlled via response_format, leaving a gap for the agent.

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 schema covers only 1 of 2 parameters (days) with description. The description introduces 'current' and 'band_distribution' outputs, which likely correspond to the response_format parameter, but does not explicitly link them to the parameter. This adds some semantic value beyond the schema but is incomplete for using the tool correctly.

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 defines Reserve Risk as a ratio and explains its cyclical interpretation with low/high bands, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling metrics. The verb 'get' is implicit in the name, and the description adds unique context about accumulation and distribution zones, making the purpose clear.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools for comparison. The agent is left to infer usage from the metric definition alone.

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