anomaly_fused

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses fusion of four detectors and output components (breakdown, agreement flags) but lacks details on return format, data freshness, authorization needs, or side effects. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 complexity (four detectors, consensus, breakdown) and no output schema, description covers key aspects. Missing explicit output structure details, but adequate for a single-parameter tool.

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 already provides description for country_code. Description adds value by explaining how the parameter is used in the context of the fused score, complementing schema without redundancy.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides a fused anomaly score for a country by combining four named detectors into a consensus signal with per-detector breakdown and agreement flags. It explicitly distinguishes itself as 'the strongest single anomaly signal' from sibling tools like anomaly_dbscan or anomaly_score.

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?

Implies use for obtaining a consolidated anomaly score. The phrase 'strongest single anomaly signal' suggests preference over individual detectors, but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings like anomaly_seasonal or anomaly_leaderboard.

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