align_series

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose local computation, no network access, and output written to file_path as CSV. However, it does not disclose whether an existing output file is overwritten or whether input files are strictly read-only.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently enumerates options and side effects. Every clause adds useful information, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the combination of description and schema covers the input constraints, alignment modes, fill behavior, resampling, defaults, and output path. The main residual gap is overwrite behavior, which is minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces defaults like close, union/intersection, forward-fill, and weekly/monthly resampling, but these are essentially also carried by the input schema. It adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the exact operation: aligning multiple library-produced CSVs by date into one wide table, with a default value column of close. This clearly differentiates it from the query_* sibling tools and from the raw name alone.

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 specifies when to use it: on CSV files produced by this library, with pure local computation and no network access. It does not name alternatives explicitly or list exclusion rules, but the scope is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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