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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it explains that an unmeasured axis is a first-class answer, never an error and never a zero, and that an axis row is never a certification. This prevents likely misinterpretations. It does not discuss errors, auth, or rate limits, but the core behavioral quirks of this tool are disclosed.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the returned object and source URL, the second clarifies the unmeasured-axis semantic, and the third rules out certification. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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?

For a simple single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the source, lists the returned fields, and explains the key special case (unmeasured axes). The unknown-name behavior lives in the schema description, which is acceptable. Minor gaps include no explicit response envelope and no relationship to sibling tools, but these are not critical for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single required 'axis' parameter, including case-insensitivity and the unknown-name fallback. The main description adds nothing about the parameter itself, only about the shape and semantics of the returned row, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('one axis row from the live GSPC board') and lists the fields returned, making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verbed statement like 'Retrieves...', and it does not directly contrast with sibling tools such as get_card or board_totals.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use get_axis versus alternatives like get_card, board_totals, or verify_inclusion. It implies usage by describing the output, but it never states a selection condition, exclusions, or when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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