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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the label is descriptive, based on the most recent completed bar (avoiding look-ahead), and explicitly non-predictive. It does not cover return format or potential errors, but the key behavioral traits are communicated.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core output (market-state label), immediately qualifies the timeframe and non-predictive nature, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential selecting criteria: what it returns, the timing basis, and the non-prediction caveat. It lacks explicit parameter definitions and label value examples, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'timestamp' in the context of 'at or before a timestamp', clarifying its use, but does not explain 'symbol' at all. The agent must infer that 'symbol' refers to the market instrument, which is a gap.

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 returns a descriptive market-state label for a specific bar, with the quadrant scheme (trend/range × calm/vol) explicitly defined. It distinguishes itself from similar tools like get_market_pulse by focusing on a label for the most recent completed bar, and the 'Not a prediction' caveat adds precision.

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 provides clear context by specifying the tool works for the most recent completed bar at or before a timestamp, and the 'Not a prediction' statement acts as an exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond the prediction caveat.

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