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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the output is observational, contains no buy/sell recommendation, and includes drift labels and review questions. This gives an agent an accurate model of what the tool will and will not do, without contradicting the annotations.

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 three sentences with a front-loaded purpose and no filler. The explicit list of output fields is slightly redundant given the declared output schema, but it is compact and useful enough to justify a high score.

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 read-only annotations, a fully documented schema, and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool scores, which modes it supports, what type of output to expect, and that it is observational. No critical operational information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are documented with types, enums, and descriptions. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond 'single position' and 'since entry', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: score how a single position's regime fit has drifted since entry, and enumerates the returned fields. It is clear and actionable, but it does not explicitly contrast the tool with sibling get_drift_alerts or get_regime_history, so differentiation relies on name and context rather than an explicit statement.

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 gives clear context: it supports Chapter 4 Mode 4.2 for single-name retrospective review and Mode 4.3 for per-position drift across the book, and explicitly states that no buy/sell recommendation is made. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the mode references and observational caveat provide enough guidance for an agent to decide when to use it.

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