get_intelligence_sample

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It discloses the rate limit (1 per 20 minutes), the generation frequency (every 4 hours), that no payment or API key is required, and that the data is a sample rather than live. This gives an agent a clear behavioral profile before invocation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second lists what data is included, and the remaining sentences cover frequency, rate limit, access requirements, and the alternative. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 no-parameter tool with a rich description, this is complete. It covers what the tool returns (synthesis of multiple data domains), data freshness (every 4 hours), access constraints (rate limit, no auth), and directs to the sibling tool for live data. An agent can correctly decide whether to call it without opening any schema.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about authentication (no API key required) which is not parameter-related, and since schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), nothing additional is needed. It accurately reflects the parameter-less nature.

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 action (get) and resource (free sample of Master Intelligence Digest), and elaborates on the content (cross-domain synthesis of multiple data sources). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool get_intelligence_digest by framing this as the free sample versus the live paid version.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for a free sample) and directs users to get_intelligence_digest for live data, mentioning the cost and alternative access method (sign up for a free API key). The rate limit and no-payment condition are also stated, so an agent knows exactly when and how to use it.

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