get_intelligence_index

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds behavioral detail (real-time, returns index, percentile rank, trends, components), which is consistent and adds value beyond 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?

The description is concise (two sentences plus a caution), front-loaded with key information. However, the misleading parameter example detracts from 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?

The description explains return values well despite no output schema. However, the parameter contradiction reduces completeness, as the agent cannot reliably determine if the market parameter is needed or not.

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 parameters, but the description includes an example with a 'market' parameter (market=northern-virginia). This is a contradiction between description and schema, misleading an AI about required inputs.

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 composite market health score (0-100) and lists the components. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_market_intel for full metric set, rank_markets for multiple markets), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including concrete alternatives (get_market_intel, rank_markets). The example call further clarifies usage.

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