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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing cost ('Free') and the access-explanation behavior, which an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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-loads the key directive in two words ('Start here.'), then enumerates contents in a single readable sentence. The list is slightly dense but every item earns its place by telling the agent what the guide contains.

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 orientation tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent receives and why to call it first. Minor gaps remain around the non-default topic topics, but nothing essential to invoking 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% and the lone 'topic' enum is fully documented in-schema (including the legacy-topic distinction for 'all'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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+resource ('Returns the candle market-memory guide') and inventories its contents (evidence scope, chart presets, call order, band/track reading, access). It reads clearly as the orientation entry point and is implicitly distinct from the data-returning siblings, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the contrast.

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 imperative 'Start here' gives clear, actionable context for when to call it, and 'Free; explains current access for agents' signals the cost/access condition. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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