get_current_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does most of the work: it discloses the exact output shape, the band enumeration, freshness/impairment inclusion, and critically the interpretation limits ('not an organization-specific risk score or a forecast'). It never states read-only status, auth needs, or rate limits.

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?

Output contents are front-loaded in the first sentence and the interpretive caveat follows as a compact second paragraph. Both sentences earn their place, though the block formatting of the caveat is slightly longer than a single clause would need to be.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't document return values, and it nonetheless enumerates them briefly. Combined with the semantic caveat about what the index is not, this is nearly complete for a zero-parameter read tool; only operational traits like caching/freshness cadence are absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to add and the description correctly does not waste space on inputs; 'current' implies no time arguments are accepted.

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 specific verb+resource ('Get the current ICHI score') and enumerates the returned content: score (0-100), band with named levels, per-dimension sub-scores, and freshness/impairment info. That is far more precise than a tautology, but it never names get_recent_alerts or get_source_health, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'current' suggests a point-in-time snapshot versus the recency/health framing of the siblings, and the caveat that this is 'outside-in, internet-wide' hints at when the signal is and isn't appropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-naming guidance.

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