analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and explicitly discloses that the operation is 'read-only' and 'bounded'. It also adds useful operational details: 'window_days' defaults to 90 days, 'since' overrides it, and 'limit' is capped by MAX_ROW_LIMIT. It omits auth requirements and per-action effects, but the core safety profile is clearly stated.

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 one-sentence summary is front-loaded and the Args block is compact with no filler. Each line adds parameter semantics or a default/cap that the schema does not provide, making it appropriately sized.

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?

Parameter semantics and the read-only/bounded behavior are well covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be documented. However, the three action modes are not explained at the semantic level, and there is no guidance on how 'analysis' relates to overlapping siblings, which leaves the description incomplete for tool selection.

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 for all 8 parameters, and it does. Every parameter is explained with allowed values, targets, defaults, or overrides, including the permitted journal fields and the row cap/offset behavior.

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 opening line states a specific operation ('bounded, read-only analysis') over defined resources ('catalog answers or journals'), and the Args section names concrete action modes ('ritm_variables', 'journal_history', 'describe'). This is clear but does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as 'query', 'audit', or the sibling also named 'describe'.

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 guidance is given on when to choose this tool over the sibling alternatives or when not to use it. The parameter notes explain mechanics but not the selection context, so an agent must infer usage from the generic word 'analysis'.

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