cftc_cot_disaggregated

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content context (position breakdown categories, physical commodities scope) but doesn't disclose behavioral details such as default pagination, row limits behavior, or result structure beyond what annotations/schema convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, each sentence earning its place (function → data structure → scope/differentiation). Zero waste.

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?

With 100% schema param coverage, readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, data categories, and scope boundaries effectively. It would benefit from mentioning pagination/result size behavior, but for a straightforward filtered-report tool, it is largely complete.

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 schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides; the report-category info is useful context but doesn't enrich parameter semantics.

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 Disaggregated Commitments of Traders (COT) report data from CFTC') and details the distinct position categories (Producer/Merchant/Processor/User, Swap Dealers, Managed Money, Other Reportables). It explicitly distinguishes this from the Legacy report, which is directly relevant given the cftc_cot_legacy sibling.

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 clear usage context: 'More granular than Legacy report' and 'Covers physical commodities (not financial futures)' — this tells the agent when to choose this tool over the Legacy sibling and identifies a clear exclusion. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives for the TFF/CIT siblings, but the main alternative is covered.

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