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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return shape (verdict, score, underlying checks) and the concrete data sources consulted (order flow, momentum, volatility, adverse events, regime, 24h news/filings). It omits latency/cost limits, so not a 5.

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 real-world scenario, then the return payload, then the alternative-tool routing - each sentence earns its place. Slightly dense, but no filler.

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 present, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the verdict, score and checks. Complete for a read-only timing tool; minor gaps like latency or pagination are not material here.

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%, so side, symbol and window are already documented in the schema; the description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema's own descriptions. Per the high-coverage 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?

Specific verb+resource: evaluates whether now is a good moment to trade a given symbol/side, returning a FAVORABLE/CAUTION/UNFAVORABLE verdict. It explicitly disambiguates from its sibling decision.lite, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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?

States the exact triggering context ('when you already know the symbol and side and only need go/no-go timing') and names the alternative with its own condition ('for an action with conviction use decision.lite'). When-to-use and the sibling route are both explicit.

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