Market Intelligence Index

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'real-time', the aggregation components, and the specific outputs (index value, percentile rank, trend direction, component scores). It does not overstate side effects and aligns with the annotation safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the core definition and returns, and every sentence adds useful detail. It is slightly longer than necessary due to repeated 'one composite health number' language and both an example and a disambiguation clause, but the structure remains clear and scannable.

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 output semantics, example usage, and sibling tool routing, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. However, the missing/contradictory parameter mechanism for selecting a market leaves a fundamental gap: the agent knows what the tool does but not how to formally supply the required market context.

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 declares zero parameters, yet the description suggests calling 'get_intelligence_index market=northern-virginia' and describes the tool as returning a score 'for a market'. This mismatch means an agent cannot reliably construct a valid call from the schema, and the description's parameter guidance actively conflicts with the structured input definition.

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 names a specific resource ('composite market health score'), a concrete scale (0-100), and the underlying components, so an agent knows exactly what the tool computes. It also explicitly contrasts itself with get_market_intel and rank_markets, making sibling differentiation strong.

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 gives a concrete invocation example, states what questions it answers, and explicitly says when NOT to use it by naming two alternatives: get_market_intel for the full metric set and rank_markets for ranking multiple markets. This is clear and actionable routing guidance.

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