t2000

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as providing analytics (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('detailed savings analytics') and lists specific metrics. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the comparison to 't2000_earnings' into a second sentence for clarity).

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and comparison to a sibling tool. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication needs, response format) and doesn't fully contextualize usage against all relevant siblings. For a read-only analytics tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. No additional parameter information is required, making this adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 provides 'detailed savings analytics' and lists specific metrics (total supplied, current APY, earned today, earned all-time, projected monthly yield), which gives a concrete understanding of what data it returns. It distinguishes from sibling 't2000_earnings' by stating it's 'more detailed,' though it doesn't specify how it differs from other savings-related tools like 't2000_balance' or 't2000_overview'.

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 implies usage by stating it's 'more detailed than t2000_earnings,' suggesting this tool should be used when more comprehensive savings analytics are needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 't2000_balance' or 't2000_overview,' nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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