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

The description discloses that grades are 'logged and resolved at horizon' and that 'cross-grade performance stays withheld until the deployed weekly truth gate clears', providing insight into side effects and timing. It also includes a disclaimer 'Analytical, not advice'. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the sparse 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 dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and packs in inputs, outputs, behavior, and pairing guidance. While lengthy, each sentence adds value, so it is appropriately structured.

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 lack of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return value (grade A..F with flags, supporting factors, falsifiers) and provides usage context with siblings. It leaves a few domain terms unexplained (e.g., 'n0brains', 'weekly truth gate'), but overall it is a complete description for a complex 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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by enumerating the optional parameters ('entry, stop, target, leverage, horizon_hours (default 24)') and clarifying the required 'asset + side (long/short)'. It does not deeply explain each parameter's semantics, but the trading context makes them relatively self-explanatory.

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 performs a 'graded pre-trade conditions assessment' returning a grade A..F with flags. It uses a specific verb ('vet'/'check') and resource ('proposed trade'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as the entry point ('START HERE') and by naming complementary tools like get_positioning and get_event_outlook.

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 explicitly says to 'Ask n0brains First' and marks this as the starting point for vetting a trade. It also provides the alternative/complementary tools to pair with for a complete assessment, though it doesn't state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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