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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly: it discloses the classification outputs (pass/caution/unassessed), warnings with numbers, roll-up values, the side effect of recording the assessment, and the epistemic caveat that ratings are opinions, not predictions or advice. It also clarifies the tool does not make the decision — 'The agent decides'.

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 sentences pack the core purpose, output semantics, side effect, and limitation without redundant filler. The main behavioral content is front-loaded, with the disclaimer placed at the end where it serves as a caveat rather than an obstacle.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent will receive: per-check statuses against thresholds, numerical warnings, an actionability roll-up, and insufficient-data cases. It also addresses the side effect of recording and the non-advice nature of the output, making it functionally complete for invocation and interpretation.

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 description coverage is 75%, so most parameters already carry meaning through the schema's property descriptions and the intent enum. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, and horizon_days remains the one under-documented parameter at 0% coverage within the description.

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 verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('an asset before acting'), and details the evaluation dimensions (health, drawdown, volume trend, dilution, volatility, turnover, regime) plus the actionability roll-up. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like coingraph_validate_trade or coingraph_get_signals, so an agent must infer the differentiation.

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 phrase 'before acting' and 'The agent decides' imply the tool is meant to support pre-trade deliberation, and 'Records the assessment' suggests it is for decisions that will be measured later. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, nor any statement about when not to use this tool.

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