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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the output structure (verdict, score, checks) and the factors considered, which is beyond what annotations state. No contradiction 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose with an example, then lists the output and checks. It is not excessively verbose, though the list of checks adds length. The structure is effective and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (synthesizing multiple market factors) and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return format and the main checks. It does not explain the meaning of the window parameter or the interpretation of the verdict score, but for a pre-trade check tool this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 33% (only 'symbol' has a description). The description does not compensate: it mentions 'buy (or sell)' which mirrors the 'side' enum, but does not explain the meaning or impact of the 'window' parameter (1m, 5m, 15m) or the default behavior. With low coverage, the description should clarify these, but it remains silent, leaving the agent to guess.

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's function: it answers a pre-trade timing question for a given symbol and side, and returns a verdict with supporting checks. It names the specific output (FAVORABLE, CAUTION, UNFAVORABLE, score, checks) and lists the analysis components, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_market_regime or check_token_risk, which focus on individual factors.

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 phrase 'Right before a trade' provides a clear usage context, and the example question 'I want to buy (or sell) SYMBOL - is now a good moment?' tells the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios, but the context is strong enough.

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