quote_of_day

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses deterministic-by-date behavior that is stable within the day, the advisor_dir fallback to the first collected advisor, and that a missing P1/P2 quote yields a {note} rather than fabricated generic wisdom. Auth/rate-limit details are absent, but for a pull-only read tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the single packed paragraph relies on jargon (P1/P2, 🔵-verbatim, retention hook) and mixes purpose, behavior, and failure mode without structure, hurting scannability.

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 two-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is returned (quote + source), the fallback shape ({note}), and default resolution of advisor_dir. Only the date parameter's expected format is left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains advisor_dir well ('optional, absent → first collected') and establishes that date drives determinism, but adds no format/type detail for the date parameter (e.g. expected date format), leaving half the parameter surface only loosely covered.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: returns one verbatim quote of the day from the advisor's P1/P2 corpus plus its source. 'Retention hook (PULL-ONLY, on demand)' frames the intent, though sibling differentiation is only implicit — the adjacent retrieve/cite tools are not named or contrasted.

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?

'PULL-ONLY, по запросу' (on demand) implies the agent should call it rather than expect a push, and 'retention hook' hints at the surface use. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no alternative tool is named for related retrieval needs.

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