get_indicators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output format and the default time window, but does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only nature), error behavior, or performance considerations. While likely a read query, this is not stated explicitly, so the transparency is incomplete.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently conveys the output format, limits, default behavior, and parameter sourcing without repetition or filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameter sourcing, limits, and default time behavior. An output schema exists, so return structure is standard. It lacks explicit error handling or permission notes, but for a query tool, this is acceptable given the schema and described constraints.

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 must add meaning. It explains that indicators come from search_indicators and zones from list_zones, which is critical for correct usage. It also clarifies the default behavior of time_from/time_to, adding value beyond the schema's minimal property titles.

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 indicator values for zones in a tabular format, with one column per indicator. It specifies it crosses multiple sources into a single table, which differentiates it from single-source tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling query_data tool, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 provides context on how to populate parameters (IDs from search_indicators, zone codes from list_zones) and notes the default behavior without time filters. It implies usage for multi-source aggregation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_data, nor when not to use it.

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