Get Historical Store Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what diagnostic information is reported (coverage, cadence gaps, counts, schema version, dependency checks), which goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Reports local DuckDB/Parquet coverage') and then efficiently enumerates each reported item. Every clause earns its place without any redundant wording or filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter status-reporting tool with an output schema present, this description is complete. It covers all relevant dimensions of the tool's behavior—coverage, gaps, counts, schema version, and dependency checks—and the output schema handles return-value details, so no necessary information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics since there are none, and the schema coverage is already 100%, leaving nothing undocumented.

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 uses a specific reporting verb and names the exact resource ('local DuckDB/Parquet coverage') plus a detailed list of what it reports, including cadence gaps, counts, schema version, and dependency status. This clearly differentiates it from sibling data retrieval tools like get_historical_generation, which report market data rather than storage health.

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 clearly implies when this tool should be used: whenever an agent needs to assess the completeness or health of the local historical data store, such as before running sync_historical_store. It provides clear context for the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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