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

With no annotations, the description discloses important traits: DB-backed with 30-min cache, market-level aggregation, and exclusion of per-asset details. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the context strongly implies it. No contradictions.

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?

Description is structured with a front-loaded summary then details. It is informative without excessive verbosity, though a few sentences could be combined. Still efficient and well-organized.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive: it explains input range, output columns, data source, caching, and scope limitations. No gaps.

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 covers the sole parameter 'days' completely (100% coverage with description). The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the tool gets daily Leverage Radar market-level history with a specific list of fields (avg/max pressure, setup score, assets in critical zone, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Pro-only per-asset detail excluded — market-level only,' implying other tools handle per-asset data.

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 description provides clear context for what the tool returns (market-level history) and hints at exclusions (per-asset detail), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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