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

The description goes beyond the read-only annotation by disclosing what the tool returns: a loop description, example prompts, a live one-line market read, a glossary note, and a guide link. It also reveals that the market read comes from the current data layer, which is useful behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then enumerates the returned items without filler. It is somewhat dense as a single long sentence, but every phrase contributes useful information.

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, read-only orientation tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the invocation context, what the tool returns, and useful details about the glossary and current data layer. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 gives a concrete purpose: orientation for a new Jawz connection and questions about what Jawz is, covers, or how it is used. It also lists the exact deliverables returned, making the tool's role unmistakable and distinct from data-retrieval siblings like get_loop or get_world_brief.

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 frames when to use the tool: for onboarding a new connection and for conceptual questions about Jawz. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended context is clear and sufficient for a zero-parameter orientation tool.

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