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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape and the six check categories (order flow, momentum, volatility, adverse events, regime, news/filings of the last 24h). It stops short of noting latency or data-freshness caveats, 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 decision scenario in a quoted user-voice framing, then lists outputs and routing in two compact sentences. Slightly dense with enumeration, but every clause earns its place and there is 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the return contents (verdict, score, underlying checks) and the routing condition, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly against a 3-parameter, read-only analytic tool.

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 both enums are self-documenting, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only loosely implies that symbol and side are the inputs already known to the caller, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb and resource: it evaluates whether 'now' is a good moment to buy/sell a given SYMBOL, and enumerates the verdict output (FAVORABLE, CAUTION, UNFAVORABLE). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling decision.lite by stating this is for go/no-go timing only.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when you already know the symbol and side and only need go/no-go timing') and an explicit alternative for the other case ('for an action with conviction use decision.lite'). Nothing is left to inference.

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