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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses useful behavior: the live signal_usage data source, the 0-100 score range, four scoring factors, and the interpretation that high stress may indicate market dislocation. It still does not specify exact return structure, update cadence, or access characteristics.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with pricing and purpose, then lists scoring factors, then gives interpretation. Every sentence contributes to understanding what the tool measures and how the score is formed.

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 zero-parameter scoring tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the score range, data source, inputs to the score, and interpretation. It could be more explicit about the exact response payload, but it provides enough context to invoke the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently minimal. The description does not need to explain parameter formats, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 a specific verb and resource: it detects panic, uncertainty, and unusual call patterns from live signal_usage data, and computes a stress score from 0-100. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling scoring tools such as agent_conviction_score or fear_greed, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains what the tool computes but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling-comparison instructions beyond the implicit risk-monitoring context.

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