agora_world_pulse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses data semantics that structure cannot: results are clustered, carry source freshness/provenance, and are explicitly not a truth feed nor a realtime guarantee. It does not disclose read-only nature, auth needs, or rate limits, leaving operational behavior unstated.

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 front-loaded sentences with no padding: the return contract comes first, the critical caveat second. Efficient and readable, though the second sentence is slightly convoluted.

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-parameter read tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the essential caveat an agent needs before treating the data as fact. The only shortfall is the absence of routing guidance against its many similar siblings.

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?

Zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so nothing needs explaining at the parameter level. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return clustered World Pulse events with source freshness/provenance.' An agent knows what it gets back. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling agora_observe_world, so the differentiation requirement for a 5 is unmet.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The disclaimer about truth/realtime tells the agent what the data is not, but not when this tool should be selected over siblings like agora_observe_world or agora_knowledge_snapshot.

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