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

Despite annotations covering read-only safety, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the half-hour refresh cadence, the fact that social feeds are explicitly excluded, that tags and tone are computed in code with recency weighting, and the specific efficiency-ratio method for regime detection. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 core purpose and every clause (methodology, refresh rate, limitations) earns its place, but the first sentence is a dense run-on with multiple nested parentheticals that could be split for easier parsing. Still, it avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape (tone, band, headlines with times/links, regime, sky word) and includes operational context (refresh rate, data sources excluded). Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter (`market`) has an enum with a default, but the description adds no additional meaning about the parameter—no explanation of what 'market' represents beyond the enum values or how the default behaves. The schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies exactly what the tool returns: a recency-weighted tone from 72h of headlines, the headlines themselves, a tape regime from efficiency ratio, and a sky word. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a forecast or trade direction, preventing confusion with siblings like `forecast` or `price`.

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?

It clearly states when-not to use it: 'A mood, never a forecast or a direction to trade; social feeds are not read.' However, it does not name specific alternatives (e.g., use `tape` for raw price or `forecast` for predictions), leaving the agent to infer which sibling to pick for different needs.

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