market_timing_guide

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the word 'DEMO', which vaguely suggests a non-production version, but fails to disclose data sources, limitations, or any operational side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence that expresses the core purpose without waste. However, the abrupt 'DEMO' inclusion and lack of detail make it less effective as a structured, informative description, dropping it slightly from a perfect score.

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?

While the tool has an output schema that covers return values, the description still lacks context about parameter usage, data sources, and the significance of 'DEMO'. It reads like a placeholder rather than a complete guide for an agent, especially compared to more detailed sibling descriptions.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. However, it does not mention 'commodity' or 'county' at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on what values to supply or how they affect the timing advice.

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 clearly states the tool's function: providing optimal selling timing for Kenya produce based on price cycles. This differentiates it from sibling tools like crop_calendar and fertilizer_guide, though it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'provides' or 'calculates').

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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