get_intelligence_index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it details the composite nature, trend direction, and component scores. No contradictions, and no negative behaviors like rate limits are disclosed, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: first sentence defines purpose, second lists return components, third gives an example, fourth clarifies when not to use. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (index, percentile, trend, components). It also provides usage guidelines and examples, making it complete for understanding the tool's behavior and output.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters (100% coverage). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds meaningful context by indicating the tool operates per-market (with an example), even though the parameter is not in the schema. This helps clarify usage beyond the empty schema.

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 lists specific components. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings: '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?

The description explicitly says when to use it (for a single market health score) and when not to (for full metric set or ranking), naming alternative tools. This provides clear guidance.

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