forecast_multi_horizon_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the return data in detail (per-horizon metrics, feature counts, load status, ship recommendation) and implies read-only behavior. No side effects mentioned, but for a metadata retrieval tool with no parameters, this is sufficient.

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 with no waste: first sentence lists contents, second gives usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what data is returned and when to use it. No missing information for an agent to select or invoke this tool correctly.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4. The description adds context by explaining what the metadata contains, which is more than what the schema provides (empty).

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 it provides metadata for the multi-horizon model bundle, listing specific metrics (LOCO AUC/Brier/F1, feature counts, load status, ship recommendation). It explicitly says to call this to verify model health, distinguishing it from the sibling forecast_multi_horizon tool.

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 states when to use: 'before relying on multi-horizon output'. It implies a precondition (calling this first) and differentiates from forecast_multi_horizon by framing it as a health check. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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