golden_alerts_monthly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it exceptionally: it discloses that the archive is permanent, never deleted, grows indefinitely, excludes months with fewer than 20 daily records, lists the data source, notes no authentication, specifies the rate limit, and mentions the 5-minute cache. This provides a comprehensive behavioral profile.

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 somewhat long but almost every sentence adds value, covering aggregation, field details, exclusion rules, source, authentication, rate limit, and cache. There is minor redundancy in the opening phrase ('permanent monthly archive' repeated) but it remains well-organized and readable.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates all return fields (totalCount, severity counts, topTokens, daysInMonth, avgPerDay) and important operational context (source, auth, rate limit, cache, exclusion threshold). This is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with zero parameters and interpret the result.

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, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The schema already covers everything, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail.

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 verb-return-with-resource, naming the permanent monthly archive of Golden Alert activity with one row per calendar month. It explicitly distinguishes this from a snapshot by emphasizing aggregation from daily snapshots before purging, making its scope and unique position clear.

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 frames the intended use case as providing long-term trend data across months and years, which helps an agent decide when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to avoid major misuse.

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