anomaly_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the algorithm (unsupervised Isolation-Forest) and output interpretation (negative score = anomaly, is_anomaly threshold). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. The description adds value but could be more transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the algorithm and purpose, followed by score interpretation and pairing suggestion. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words.

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 ML nature and lack of output schema, the description provides essential details (algorithm, threshold, pairing) but omits explicit output structure (e.g., single number vs. record, whether multiple outputs per day). It hints at 'is_anomaly=true' but is incomplete for a fully self-contained tool definition.

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 coverage is 100% (country_code has a description). The description adds 'for a country-day' context but does not further elaborate on the parameter's meaning or provide additional usage syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as providing an Isolation-Forest anomaly score for a country-day, defines the score interpretation (more negative = more anomalous, is_anomaly threshold at top 26%), and distinguishes from siblings by suggesting pairing with classifier_score and forecast_multi_horizon. This gives a specific verb+resource and helps differentiate among many anomaly tools.

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 recommends using this tool as a 'second opinion' paired with classifier_score and forecast_multi_horizon, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for similar tasks.

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