Get signal hit-rates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the data is historical and that the result is an array of records with specific fields, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It doesn't discuss staleness, update frequency, or potential caveats, but it provides solid 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 only two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It packs essential output field details and a usage heuristic without redundant filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it does so by listing all fields and some semantics (hitRate as 0-1, avgReturnPercent). However, terms like 'precision' and 'windowDays' are only named, not fully defined, and it doesn't differentiate from closely related sibling tools, leaving slight gaps.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics and does not need to explain parameter behavior. It adds value by describing what each returned field means, which is useful even with an empty 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'Historical track record per signal type' and enumerates the exact fields returned (signalType, hitRate, totalObservations, etc.). This distinguishes it from more generic siblings like get_accuracy_summary or get_signal_accuracy_heatmap by emphasizing per-signal-type granularity.

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 says to 'Use to weight how much to trust a given signal before acting on it' and provides a concrete heuristic ('prefer signals with high hitRate AND large totalObservations'). It clearly conveys when to use the tool, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or name direct alternatives.

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