Data source health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the data is public and 'may be delayed or wrong', which tells the agent how much to trust the result. The 'education only / not financial advice' line is boilerplate but not contradictory.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by when to use it. It is well-sized, though the legal disclaimer sentence is padding that does not help the agent invoke the tool.

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-only status endpoint with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what comes back, when to call it, and how reliable the data is. Annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing essential is missing, though return-value structure is only sketched rather than detailed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The parenthetical list of returned fields (status, latest checkpoint, server time) is a useful stand-in for the absent output schema.

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 names a specific resource (the public DeepBook indexer) and enumerates what it reports: status, latest checkpoint, server time. That is much more concrete than a generic 'health check'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many market-data siblings, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

'Use when data looks stale' gives a clear triggering condition for invoking the tool, so the agent knows when it is relevant. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to an alternative diagnostic tool, but for a single-purpose status endpoint the context is sufficient.

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