Market Intelligence Index

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about what the index aggregates (supply/demand, vacancy, fiber depth, etc.) and what is returned (index, percentile rank, trends, component scores). It does not contradict the annotations. Minor confusion from 'Returns ONE composite health number' followed by a list of returns, but not a serious issue.

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 3 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value: what it is, what it returns, and how to use it with alternatives. It is slightly verbose in the list of components, but generally well-structured.

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?

The description covers purpose, return values, and usage exclusions, and the output schema presumably documents the return shape. However, the critical discrepancy between the implicit 'market' parameter and the empty input schema creates a completeness gap, potentially preventing correct invocation. Without that issue, it would be very complete.

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 input schema has zero properties, yet the description explicitly suggests using a 'market' parameter: 'Try: get_intelligence_index market=northern-virginia.' This is misleading — the agent would attempt to pass a parameter that doesn't exist in the schema, leading to invocation errors. This is worse than providing no parameter info, so it deserves a low score.

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 a specific verb ('returns a composite health score'), identifies the resource ('market intelligence index'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating 'do NOT use for the full market metric set (use get_market_intel) or to rank multiple markets (use rank_markets).'

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions with an example ('Try: get_intelligence_index market=northern-virginia'), and clearly states when not to use it, naming alternatives (get_market_intel, rank_markets). This is excellent guidance for an agent.

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