dema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like data sources, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format/scope the 'fetch' returns. For a financial data tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 maximally concise with a single clear phrase. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration - every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose. The structure is front-loaded with the essential information.

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 technical indicator calculation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It provides only the basic purpose without explaining parameter meanings, behavioral characteristics, or output format. Given the complexity implied by multiple parameters and the financial data context, more complete guidance is needed.

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 for all 6 parameters, the description provides no information about what any parameter means or how they interact. 'Fetch double exponential moving average' gives no insight into required parameters like symbol, interval, time_period, series_type, or optional ones like month and datatype. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Fetch double exponential moving average' clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (double exponential moving average), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar technical indicator tools like 'ema' (exponential moving average) or 't3' (triple exponential moving average) in the sibling list, leaving ambiguity about when to choose this specific variant.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar technical analysis tools in the sibling list (e.g., ema, sma, wma, t3), the description lacks any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to help an agent select this specific moving average calculation method.

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