clear_market_data_delay

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

With no annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: it reports the removed delay and returns NOOP when no delay was set. This clarifies the tool's safety and idempotency, which is beyond the bare schema.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and 18 words. Every phrase adds value: the action, the resource, the reporting behavior, and the NOOP condition. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and the special NOOP case. It does not mention how the delay was originally set, but that is implicit. It is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 100% coverage for the 'venue' parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add further meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Clear' and the resource 'simulated feed delay for a venue', and it explains what the tool does (remove a delay and report the removed value, or return NOOP if none exists). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_market_data_staleness' which is for checking, not clearing.

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 implies when to use (to clear a previously set delay) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The NOOP behavior hints at safe repeated calls, but there is no direct guidance on prerequisites or comparison with other tools.

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