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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the burden is light. The description still adds real value beyond them: each lens reports rising/falling vs its 50-day average plus 20-day change, and the tool emits a single posture of risk_on/risk_off/mixed, which tells the agent what kind of judgement to expect.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose and role, then the lens taxonomy, then the optional focus parameter. It is dense with domain jargon but every clause carries information; a slight trim of the lens enumeration would tighten it.

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-required-param, single-enum, read-only analysis tool with an output schema, the description covers what is computed, how each lens is expressed, the posture enum, and the effect of focus. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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% with a single enum-backed parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the same idea ('adds lenses specific to that asset class') without adding syntax, defaults, or per-value distinctions beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific analytical verb ('first-pass read of the market environment') and resource (price-ratio lenses across asset-class rotation, risk appetite, defensive flows, the dollar), with concrete sub-scopes. No sibling in the list (breadth, macro context, relative strength) overlaps this intermarket-ratio scope, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

'First-pass read' implies a screening use case, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never says when NOT to use it or which sibling (e.g. get_macro_context, get_market_breadth, get_relative_strength) to prefer under which conditions, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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