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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the meaningful access requirement (active subscription) and names the specific content categories returned, which helps the agent anticipate what the call entails. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the market-level scope, and the subscription requirement is separated into a short second sentence. The first sentence is grammatically awkward and dense, but it conveys the core content without waste.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and the key prerequisite. It could be slightly more complete about what happens when no subscription is active, but for a read-only, parameter-less context tool this is sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 identifies the tool as returning whole-tape market context—risk regime, breadth, market heat/froth, and cycle read—and distinguishes it from per-name signal tools by saying per-name signals sit inside it. It lacks a direct verb ('get'/'returns'), but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 implies this is for market-level context rather than per-name signal retrieval, and states the subscription prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it over sibling tools like get_signal or list_signals, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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