get_today_readiness_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Returns: Dictionary containing readiness data for today,' which hints at output format but lacks details on data structure, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Get readiness data for today.') and a brief return note. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and output. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on data format, error cases, or how it differs from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and usage details to be fully helpful.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools, as no compensation is required.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get readiness data for today.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('readiness data') with temporal scope ('for today'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_readiness_data' (which likely lacks the 'today' filter) or 'get_today_resilience_data' (which targets a different data type).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_readiness_data' (for broader date ranges) or 'get_today_resilience_data' (for different metrics), nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for usage.

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