Get the whole Index as JSON

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the return format is JSON and that it includes caveats, but does not elaborate on pagination, size, or other behavioral details. Since the annotation covers the primary behavioral concern (read-only), the description adds minimal extra context.

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 the tool's purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no tautology 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?

The tool is simple (0 required parameters) with a read-only annotation and no output schema. The description adequately communicates the scope of the returned dataset ('every task, every market, every source') and the presence of caveats. While the exact structure of the JSON is not described, it is not essential for a simple retrieval tool. The only minor gap is the vague 'caveats' reference.

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 sole parameter `market` is fully documented in the input schema, including its optional nature and valid values (`us`, `gr`, `ua`). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 output as the complete Cost of Work Index as JSON, specifying 'every task, every market, every source'. It differentiates from sibling get_task_cost by noting when to prefer a single figure. The title 'Get the whole Index as JSON' reinforces the specific verb and resource.

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 states the use case: 'when you need the dataset itself rather than one answer'. It names an alternative tool, `get_task_cost`, for a single figure, providing a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use scenario. This meets the threshold for explicit usage guidance.

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