Drand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a random value, but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the time parameter is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external service (drand quicknet).

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 complexity of interacting with an external randomness service (drand quicknet), no annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned random value looks like, potential errors, or important usage constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'time' of type 'number' but no details on format, units, or valid range. The description adds minimal context by mentioning 'specific time', but doesn't clarify whether this is a timestamp, epoch, or other time representation, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'random value associated with a specific time from drand quicknet', which specifies what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'by time' rather than 'by round' or 'latest', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get-randomness-by-round, get-randomness-latest). The description implies usage for retrieving randomness for a specific time, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations.

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