get_gold_sector_impacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is paid and 'challenge-first', which are key behaviors. But it omits details like whether it's read-only, idempotency, or error conditions. The pricing is helpful, but overall transparency is moderate.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence identifies the endpoint, second adds key context (pricing, return type, behavior). Could arguably be more concise by removing 'Compatibility tool for' which adds little, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return structure more thoroughly. It mentions 'Ripple Paths with deep operational spend and downstream sector impacts' but lacks detail on format or size. The pricing and challenge-first info are good, but completeness is average for a tool with one parameter.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a concise description for the single parameter 'id' ('Ripple signal UUID.'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool returns 'Ripple Paths with deep operational spend and downstream sector impacts for one signal', clearly identifying the verb (returns) and resource (sector impacts for a signal). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_gold_signals' which returns signals themselves.

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 mentions 'Paid endpoint currently priced at $0.15' and 'challenge-first by default', providing context on when to use (if willing to pay) and a behavioral condition. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this vs alternatives like 'get_gold_brief' or 'search_gold_inventory', nor does it say when not to use it.

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