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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns a single verdict (green/amber/red), win rate, cumulative P&L, and top 3 findings. It mentions the tool is fast (<300ms) and open-access, providing good transparency about performance and access requirements without concealing any side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, output, usage timing, and access. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core function.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists return values (verdict, win rate, P&L, top findings). It covers parameter usage clearly. However, it does not mention error handling or what happens if no data is available, but for a simple query tool this is acceptable.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds value by explaining how to use parameters: 'Omit to include all regimes' for regime, and 'Omit for broad market' for sector. It also clarifies that at least one of sector/regime can be used. This provides helpful context beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a structured pre-trade consensus signal for a sector and/or market regime.' It specifies the return values (verdict, win rate, P&L, top findings) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_ticker_brief' by focusing on network consensus rather than individual tickers.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'Call this in under 300ms before entering a trade.' It also notes it's open-access with no agent_id required. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'query_findings' or 'get_consensus_alerts', slightly limiting guidance.

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