audit_gamma_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-style audit, but does not disclose what readiness means, whether the tool mutates anything, how min_observations is applied, or what the result contains.

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 sentence with no filler; the verb and key scoping dimensions are front-loaded. It is appropriately compact, though its brevity contributes to the larger completeness gaps.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needed to establish basic call semantics. It fails to explain the return format, the role of history_dir, the significance of min_observations, or what 'readiness' practically means, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly.

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 needed to compensate for all parameters. It only hints at 'symbol' via 'by symbol,' while history_dir and min_observations are never mentioned, leaving their meanings and defaults entirely unexplained.

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 provides a specific verb ('Audit') and a distinct resource ('persisted gamma history readiness') with scoping dimensions ('by symbol and daily horizon'). It stands apart from sibling retrieval/computation tools like get_gamma_snapshot or calculate_proxy_gamma, though it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_gamma_exposure, get_gamma_snapshot, or calculate_proxy_gamma. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer appropriate usage.

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