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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it discloses the price ($0.007), the four inputs consumed (session, regime, Fear & Greed, volatility), and exactly what is returned (verdict, recommended order type, next favourable window). It omits caveats such as whether underlying data can be stale or how a low score should be interpreted, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads cost and the pre-order trigger, then the scoring inputs, then the return values – a sensible order. The heavy dash-chaining makes it cramped but nothing is truly redundant.

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 must explain returns and does: score range, the four verdict codes, order-type recommendation, and next window. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only the meaning of the score scale and data freshness are left implicit.

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 single enum parameter already documents its allowed values and default. The description only repeats 'coin (default BTC)', adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('decide whether to execute now or wait'), names the exact decision outputs (EXECUTE_NOW / GOOD_WINDOW / WAIT_15MIN / WAIT_SESSION), and distinguishes itself from single-signal siblings like regime or fear_greed by declaring it aggregates them into a timing verdict.

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?

'Call this before placing an order' gives a concrete trigger point, which is the key usage constraint for a timing tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases (e.g. for market-scanning vs order timing), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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