indicator_mass_index

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains the indicator's concept, not the tool's behavior, such as how it fetches data, what it returns, or parameter effects. There is no mention of side effects or output format, which is a significant gap given no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect conciseness score for structure.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a moderate number of parameters (4), the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks information about return values, how the calculation is performed, and the practical behavior of the tool. The complexity is not fully addressed.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including defaults and examples. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond defining the indicator. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 calculates the Mass Index (MI) and explains its purpose ('identifies potential reversals by measuring range expansion'). This is a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate this indicator from sibling indicator tools beyond its unique name.

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 when to use the tool (when needing to identify potential reversals via range expansion), but it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among the many sibling indicator tools. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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