get_running_tolerance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the return semantics in detail (the load_ratio formula and the meaning of each field), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects (though it's a read operation). The description adds value by explaining the model but omits other behavioral aspects, resulting in a 3.

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?

The description is well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a paragraph explaining the model, and a clear Args section. The load_ratio explanation is valuable but adds length; still, it's focused and front-loaded. It is concise enough without being terse, earning a 4.

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 there is an output schema, the description does not need to detail return fields, but it explains the conceptual meaning anyway. The single parameter is documented with format. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., no data for date) but for a simple read tool with an output schema, it is largely complete. A 4 is appropriate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes an Args section stating 'date: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format,' which adds format details beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. This is sufficient for the single parameter. It could mention valid ranges or constraints, but the format is enough for correct invocation.

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 states 'Get Running Tolerance for a single day,' which is a specific verb, resource, and temporal scope. It explains the output model (tolerance, acute load, distance, load_ratio) and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_running_tolerance_trend by emphasizing 'single day' versus a trend. This gives an agent unambiguous understanding of what this tool does.

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 provides clear context: it is for a single day, which implies when to use it (point-in-time) versus the trend version. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or state conditions like 'use get_running_tolerance_trend for a range.' The temporal scope is clear, but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing are given, so it earns a 4.

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