get_zone_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals some behavioral limits: 'It is not advice, and it does not predict the price,' and it notes the data is a 'reconstructed record since 1971.' However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether the output is aggregated across all months or per zone, or how missing data is handled.

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 run-on, cryptic sentence that buries the key information mid-phrase. The caveat 'It is not advice' is useful, but the structure makes it hard to parse. This is not concise writing; it is under-specified and awkward.

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 tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description must clarify what the returned data represents. It does mention specific metrics (median gold move, inflation adjustment, month count), but the opaque phrasing and lack of any return-format or example leave significant gaps. The relationship to sibling tools is also absent.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'zone' parameter with an enum and a clear description ('Omit to get every zone'). The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates the tool returns historical gold performance metrics conditioned on a zone ('median gold move 1 and 5 years later, before and after inflation'), so the resource and data scope are somewhat clear. However, it lacks a direct verb like 'get' or 'list', and the opening phrase 'What followed months that read like a given zone' is obtuse. It does not clearly differentiate from siblings like get_current_reading or get_reading_history beyond the word 'zone' in the 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_current_reading or get_reading_history. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The only usage hint is implicit in the schema's optional 'zone' parameter, not in the description text.

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