Epoch report (report 207)

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses failure behavior: a nonexistent epoch is an error, and if the read API is down the contract record is still returned with failures surfaced in `warnings`. That partial-degradation contract is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from annotations, though it says nothing about rate limits or result size beyond settlements_limit.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then return shape and failure modes — a sensible order. The parenthetical definitions are dense and slightly run-on, but each clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming every top-level return key {epoch, contract, summary, metrics, settlements, source, warnings} and explaining the two non-obvious ones. Combined with the error and degraded-mode behavior, an agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret results.

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%, and the schema already explains that omitting `epoch` yields the current open epoch and that `settlements_limit` caps returned rows. The description adds domain meaning to what settlements and metrics represent (who owes whom in cash; cleared ratio as debt removed by netting), which helps interpretation but is output semantics rather than parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 holds.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource: retrieves one epoch's phase and deadlines from the contract plus summary, metrics and settlements from the read API. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (x207_simulate_clearing) and enumerates the returned components, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit timing condition ('use it after an epoch closed') and an alternative route for the other case ('use x207_simulate_clearing to test a proposal before it is submitted'). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both present, leaving little to inference.

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