mom

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 momentum' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what rate limits apply, what format the output takes, or whether it has side effects. For a financial data tool with 6 parameters, this complete lack of behavioral context is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were informative. However, this brevity represents under-specification rather than efficient communication. While front-loaded (there's only one phrase), it fails to convey necessary information, making the conciseness detrimental rather than helpful.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, financial/technical indicator tool), complete lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 100+ sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. 'Fetch momentum' provides no context about what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or how it differs from alternatives. This is insufficient for even basic tool selection.

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 and 6 parameters (4 required), the description 'Fetch momentum' adds zero semantic information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'time_period', 'series_type', or 'datatype' mean, what values they accept, or how they affect the momentum calculation. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 momentum' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'mom' (momentum) and adds only a generic verb 'fetch'. It doesn't specify what resource is being fetched (financial data? physics data?), what 'momentum' means in this context, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'rsi', 'stoch', or 'cci' which also appear to be technical indicators. The purpose is vague and indistinguishable from similar tools.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 100+ sibling tools including many technical indicators (rsi, macd, stoch, etc.), there's no indication of what makes 'momentum' unique, when it's appropriate, or what prerequisites exist. The agent must guess based on parameter names alone.

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