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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context not covered by annotations: each lens reports 'rising/falling vs its 50-day average plus the 20-day change' and the overall posture is 'risk_on, risk_off or mixed'. This enriches the agent's understanding of output semantics.

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 dense but well-structured, using em-dashes to separate the core purpose from specific lens categories and output details. It front-loads the primary purpose and every sentence carries meaningful information without redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return format. It thoroughly covers what the tool reads, how each lens reports, the overall posture, and the optional focus parameter. The only completeness issue is the enum mismatch that could cause a failed invocation.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'focus' with an enum and description. The description adds the list of allowed values, but it includes 'crypto' which is NOT in the schema enum ('gold', 'bonds', 'tech', 'commodities', 'equity'). This contradiction could mislead an agent into sending an invalid value, reducing trust in the description's parameter guidance.

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 it is an 'Intermarket compass — a first-pass read of the market environment through price-ratio lenses' and enumerates specific ratio categories (asset-class rotation, risk appetite, defensive flows, dollar). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_macro_context and get_market_breadth by focusing on cross-asset price relationships.

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 'first-pass read' provides clear context for when to use it—as an initial market environment scan. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to decide.

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