get_observatory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful specifics: clocks are 'separate recomputable,' the deprecation sweep 'fails closed on expiry,' and there is a 'deterministic gate's firing record.' However, it does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it triggers any computation, or what side effects—if any—might occur.

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 compact and every clause adds information, but it is not front-loaded with an action verb and is dense with unexplained jargon like 'c/ainglish,' 'scanner-schedule,' and 'evidence-validity clocks.' The single-sentence structure is efficient but at the cost of clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the caller receives, but it never states the return shape or format. It also omits any mention of prerequisites, authorization, or why an agent would invoke this tool. The internal mechanics are partially described, but the overall context for calling the tool remains incomplete.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. This meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 explains what an observatory is—instruments watching public discussion—and lists concrete contents such as corpus attestations, clocks, and a gate firing record. However, it never uses a retrieval verb like 'returns' or 'fetches,' so the agent must infer that `get_observatory` provides these items. It is more than a tautology but still vague about the actual operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. The closing clause 'This is not external adoption' hints at a scope boundary, but it does not name any alternative tool or describe a decision rule. An agent would have to guess how this differs from get_adoption_trends, get_adoption_snapshot, or get_register.

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