FREE Korra lean gauges

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: the response is returned as-is without transformation, no x402 payment is involved, and the output must be treated as untrusted data rather than instructions (prompt-injection warning). That last point is a meaningful behavioral disclosure not covered by any structured field.

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?

Dense, front-loaded string with the free/proxy nature and return behavior up front; every clause (payment, disclaimer, untrusted-data note) carries weight. The '(?asset= optional)' parenthetical is slightly redundant with the schema, and the fragment style is terse to the point of being cryptic.

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-required-param, read-only proxy with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (raw Korra JSON), that it is free, and how to handle the payload. Only the meaning of the actual gauge fields is left unexplained.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the optional asset filter (letters+digits, max 12). The description only echoes '(?asset= optional)' and adds no filtering syntax, default behavior, or format meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States it is a read/proxy for 'Korra lean gauge readings', which separates it from sibling korra-calls and korra-news endpoints that serve different data. 'Lean gauge' remains undefined jargon, so an agent knows the source but not precisely what the resource represents.

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?

'FREE partner proxy... No x402' implies when this is preferable (no payment required) and 'descriptive research, not financial advice' frames the intended use. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over the other Korra or market-data siblings, so routing is left implicit.

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