build_economic_digital_twin

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention important aspects such as statefulness, side effects, cost, rate limits, or any requirements (e.g., prior setup). The term 'explainable' hints at output nature but is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action. However, it may sacrifice clarity for brevity, leaving important gaps in parameter and behavior details.

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's complexity with two parameters (one nested object) and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify what 'normalized signals' entails, how 'as_of_date' affects the result, or provide any context about the output. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates the need for return value explanation, but overall the description lacks completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'signals' parameter via 'from normalized signals' but provides no detail on format, meaning, or the optional 'as_of_date' parameter. The description adds minimal value 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: building an explainable economic-state digital twin from normalized signals. The verb 'build' and resource 'economic-state digital twin' are specific. The description effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'simulate_economic_scenario' and 'explain_economic_signal'.

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 for constructing digital twins from signals but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of prerequisites or alternatives among siblings, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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