indicator_sma

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

With no annotations provided, the description is responsible for disclosing behavior. It only mentions a precondition (data sufficiency) but does not specify what happens if the condition is not met, the return format, or any side effects.

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: two sentences that front-load the tool's identity and a key constraint. 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?

Given the simple schema and no output schema, the description should explain the tool's purpose and output. It fails to state that SMA is a line chart for smoothing data or what the return value looks like, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, so the schema already explains the parameters (values and interval). The description adds a constraint ('needs at least interval data points'), which reinforces but does not add significant new 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 clearly states the tool calculates a simple moving average (SMA) and specifies a data requirement. It distinguishes from other indicators by name, but does not explicitly differentiate from other moving averages like EMA or WMA.

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 only mentions a data point requirement ('needs at least interval data points'), but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other moving averages or trend-following indicators.

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