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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description usefully adds the staleness constraint (delayed at least an hour) and the included outcome horizons. However, it conflicts with its own schema, claiming roughly 40 symbols while the schema says 'all ten symbols,' which undercuts trust in the returned universe.

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?

Information is dense but front-loaded in one sentence, with the delayed-access caveat placed before the call-to-action. The marketing framing ('FREE', 'premium', 'Judge the decisions before buying') adds tone but little wasted length.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (action, direction, conviction, pillar scores, plus 1h/4h/24h follow-through). The only completeness gap is the unresolved symbol-count discrepancy between description and schema.

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% for the single optional symbol parameter, so baseline would be 3; but the description's example symbol list and 'about 40' universe directly contradict the schema's 'omit for all ten symbols.' For a caller deciding whether to pass a symbol, this is misleading rather than additive.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the latest hourly decision per symbol (action, direction, conviction, pillar scores) plus realized 1h/4h/24h price outcomes, positioned as a free sample of the premium product. It is clearly distinguishable from market or token tools, though the boundary with the sibling decision.lite is only implied, not stated.

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 gives an explicit usage framing: 'Judge the decisions before buying a live one,' i.e. use this as a free preview before purchasing live signals. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g. decision.lite vs decision.pre_trade), so it falls short of a 5.

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