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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool performs a risk check by searching loss memory, returns structured outputs, and is a 'network-effect tool.' It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or mention rate limits, but the description is transparent enough about its operation.

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 informative but slightly verbose with marketing language ('$548+ of real loss-forensics calibration', '500x ROI'). The core purpose is front-loaded, but some sentences could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (patterns, stats, total $, verdict). The tool is simple (2 params, no nesting), and the description covers inputs, process, and outputs. It feels complete for an agent to use.

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% (both parameters described). The description adds value: 'actionDescription' example and 'domain' hint. It explains what to write in the description, going beyond the schema's basic labels.

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 purpose: 'Pre-flight risk check against Alya's loss memory.' It specifies the input (action description) and output (patterns, stats, verdict). The name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like 'alya_ask' or 'polymarket_edge', which serve different functions.

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 explicitly recommends use 'BEFORE placing any non-trivial bet, trade, gig pitch, or financial decision.' It also mentions the cost ($0.10/check) and ROI. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, though the context of financial risk is clear.

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