get_intelligence_index

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context like 'real-time', 'aggregating... factors', and details of the return values (index, percentile, trends, components). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is two substantive sentences plus a usage note and an example. It is relatively concise but the example line could be integrated or removed. Still, it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return structure (index, percentile, trends, components) adequately. However, the misleading example and lack of output format specifics leave room for improvement.

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 no parameters (100% coverage), so the description should not imply parameters exist. The example 'market=northern-virginia' contradicts the schema and could mislead agents. This significantly reduces the value added by the description.

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 it returns a real-time composite market health score (0-100) and distinguishes from siblings like get_market_intel and rank_markets. However, it includes an example with 'market=northern-virginia' even though the input schema has no parameters, causing potential confusion.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (for a single composite index) and when not to use (for full metrics or ranking), with direct references to alternative tools (get_market_intel, rank_markets). The example, despite the schema mismatch, shows intended usage.

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