index_summary

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

With no annotations, the description self-discloses return content ('Returns totals, states, top clients/prefixes'), input schema ('doi/state/client_id/updated'), and date format. It does not mention edge cases or parameter limits, but for a read-only summarization tool this is adequate behavior 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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds practical value. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no description. The description covers input selection, invocation formats, and ideal use cases. Missing parameter semantics for two fields is the only gap, but overall the tool is well specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully specifies month format ('YYYY-MM (e.g. 2026-06)') and csv_path ('relative/absolute'), but omits top_n and max_rows semantics, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 starts with 'Summarize a monthly CSV index,' giving a specific verb and resource. It further lists the exact outputs ('totals, states, top clients/prefixes') and differentiates from siblings with 'Works without JSONL,' making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 provides clear when-to-use context: 'Works without JSONL — ideal for large months when you only have the index.' It also gives two alternative input methods ('Pass month as YYYY-MM or csv_path'). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so not a 5.

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