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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses ordering ('newest first and most unusual first'), the exact break criteria, and the returned fields including week, markets, family, direction, z, and correlation.

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 key purpose and is appropriately sized for a domain-specific tool. However, the first sentence is a dense run-on that packs the break definition, ordering, and timing together, which slightly reduces readability even though every clause carries relevant 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?

Given the output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It defines the domain concept, time window, ordering, return fields, and filter values, leaving no major ambiguity about what the tool returns or how to use its optional parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'family' is explained as narrowing to Equity regions, US sectors, Credit, Bonds, Commodities, FX and crypto, Volatility, and 'direction' is explained as strengthening versus weakening with definitions for each.

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 specific verb-resource pairing and scope: new breaks in the last four weeks of the Antevo Tremor Index. It precisely defines what a 'break' is, including the two-standard-deviation crossing and thirteen-week reset condition, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like get_tremor_history or get_tremor_index.

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 scope and filters make the intended use clear: retrieve recent unusual correlation breaks, optionally narrowed by family or direction. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_tremor_history for older breaks, but the four-week window and 'new breaks' framing provide strong contextual guidance.

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