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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioural context beyond that: regimes are explicitly 'not trade recommendations', scores are 'analytical only', and dashboard_market_environment returns 'null with a reason until the Monitor tab has published' — a genuine data-availability caveat an agent needs.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a sprawling run-on list that enumerates return fields (headline, rows, rate, regime, 30-day change, methodology, dashboard surface, composite/volatility/trend scores) at length — content that an existing output schema already carries. Substantial redundancy dilutes the signal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value enumeration was not required; the description is nonetheless complete for a read-only analytical tool with sensible null-state disclosure. Its gaps are the missing sibling routing and the return-field bloat rather than any missing operational fact.

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 the schema already documents pairs, history_years, include_chart and include_history including defaults and bounds. The description adds little parameter-level meaning (only the loose 'one or more currency pairs' and the exposure-conditional behaviour), so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource with scope ('Returns a current Hedgr regime snapshot for one or more currency pairs') and names the volatility regime taxonomy. It does not, however, draw a clear line against similarly-flavoured siblings such as get_fx_guidance or get_dashboard_context, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 single cue 'Use for market-backdrop questions' gives an implied usage context but names no alternatives and no when-not conditions, even though the sibling list contains several plausible substitutes (get_fx_guidance, get_fx_exposure, get_dashboard_context). Minimum viable, not directive.

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