whale_monthly_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden—and it delivers. It discloses that the archive is never deleted and grows indefinitely, months with fewer than 20 daily records are excluded, the data source, no authentication needed, 60 req/min rate limit, and 5-min cache. These traits go far beyond what a minimal description would provide.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose before adding use case, field summary, exclusion rule, source, and operational details. Every sentence adds value, with only minor internal repetition of 'permanent' strengthening rather than bloating the message.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, exclusions, data provenance, authentication, rate limits, caching, and a concrete historical use case. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect from it.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description additionally lists response fields (totalMoves, totalUsdValue, etc.), which helps interpret the data even though it's not needed for invocation.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the permanent monthly archive of whale movement activity' with one row per calendar month. It clearly differentiates from siblings through the monthly aggregation, permanence, and historical focus. Ambiguity is minimal.

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 gives clear context for use: answering historical questions like 'in which month were whale movements highest?' across years, and notes the archive is aggregated from daily summaries before purge. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, but the monthly-versus-daily/live distinction is strongly implied.

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