get_sigrank_standard_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: computation happens locally 'through token-cascade,' and importantly 'No data is submitted or persisted,' plus the rule that unavailable cache telemetry stays null. These are real behavioral facts the annotations do not convey.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences with little waste; the core action comes first and the privacy note closes it. The Upsilon/SigRank clarification sentence is arguably expendable but does aid disambiguation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers what is computed, the local-computation model, and the no-persistence guarantee. For a tool with an output schema and full parameter documentation, this is close to complete; only the missing usage routing is a gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates that input/output are required and that missing cache telemetry stays null, which is slightly redundant with the schema but confirms the null semantics. No additional syntax or format detail is added.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Build Upsilon's portable sigrank/0.1-draft compatibility record from available token telemetry,' and names the concrete outputs (Yield, Leverage, Velocity, SNR, 10xDEV). It even disambiguates the two named products (Upsilon vs SigRank), which helps an agent orient. It lacks explicit differentiation from the many siblings, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite a large sibling set (rank_paste, diagnose_cascade, tokenpull, tokscale_breakdown, etc.). The agent must infer the trigger condition from the purpose statement alone.

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