get_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing access requirements and safety. It states 'FREE, no wallet or API key required,' and the GET/poll nature implies read-only behavior. It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but for a simple poll endpoint, this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return values, followed by a clear usage directive and access note. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it. It could have explicitly differentiated from get_latest_digest, but the 'before fetching' phrasing implies the workflow, making the description complete enough for an agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description need not document them. The baseline of 4 applies per the rubric, and the description does not introduce any parameter ambiguity.

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 as polling an endpoint, listing the exact fields returned (digest id, digestDate, updatedAt, nextExpected time) and the HTTP method (GET /v1/index). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing its role as a lightweight status check for digest readiness.

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 explicitly says to use it 'to detect when a new daily digest is ready before fetching,' providing a clear context of use. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for fetching, but the phrase 'before fetching' implies an alternative and is sufficient guidance for an agent.

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