fingerprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the single most important behavioral trait here: this operation does not consume a trial budget, i.e. it is a non-mutating lookup. It also previews the return fields. It omits error behavior, whether anything is written to the ledger, and cost/limits for large inline panels.

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 the core value proposition (identity without trial cost), followed by return shape and then the call-to-action. No filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description steps up by naming the three return values (fingerprint, seen status, position). Still missing enough to be fully complete for a 4-param nested tool: it does not explain 'position', 'horizon', or what happens when the ledger has not seen the factor.

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 75% and the nested factor/forward/horizon descriptions already explain panel format, path resolution, and the panel-scoping rationale. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond a vague 'already counted' notion. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Identify a factor') plus a scope constraint ('WITHOUT consuming a trial') and enumerates the return contents. Sibling differentiation is only implicit — it never names 'evaluate', though the 'without consuming a trial' contrast points at it.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this before writing new factor code to avoid re-testing something already counted.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but no when-not condition or named alternative (e.g. use evaluate when you actually want to test) is provided.

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