Public corpus coverage and source clocks

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

The description usefully explains that summary takes no pagination while other views return records/total/next_offset, which annotations do not cover. It adds conceptual caveats (retrieval age vs observation freshness) but omits details like whether results are cached or the difference between views. Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is somewhat lower, but the extra context is thin.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the pagination contrast and a sibling pointer. Dense but no wasted filler; could be slightly clearer about what 'corpus coverage, rights and clocks' means.

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 read-only, idempotent listing tool with an enum parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it names the views only indirectly, provides no per-view semantics beyond pagination, no guidance on limit/offset behavior, and no return shape for other views. The core operational knowledge an agent needs 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the three parameters. It only alludes to pagination via 'summary takes no pagination' and says nothing about the view enum values (summary/datasets/flows/exports), the limit/offset bounds, or defaults. A user or agent lacks guidance on what each view returns.

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 opens with a telegraphic phrase ('Inspect corpus coverage, rights and clocks') that gestures at a specific resource but does not cleanly state what the tool actually does or that it returns a paginated listing of corpus metadata. It also fails to differentiate the tool from its many siblings beyond the single mention of liquidity_tiers.

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?

Offers a targeted recommendation to use liquidity_tiers for market readings, giving a concrete when-to-use-else guidance. It does not, however, describe when to pick this tool versus other corpus/system-status siblings or when each view should be selected, leaving gaps.

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