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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the output is 'Descriptive, uncalibrated, not financial advice,' which sets expectations about the tool's nature. It also explains the blend of inputs (macro composite, cross-sectional breadth, funding regime, vol), adding useful context beyond the structured annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded with a context label. Every sentence adds value: it explains the purpose, the inputs, the output, the alternative, and the disclaimers. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail: possible output values, underlying inputs, and a point of comparison (get_market_brief). It could be more explicit about the exact output format, but it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it does clarify what the tool evaluates (macro composite, breadth, funding, vol), which indirectly gives context for how the result is derived.

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 provides a market-wide risk-appetite read with specific outcomes (risk-on/risk-off/squeeze) and answers a concrete question ('do conditions favor risk right now?'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_market_brief by noting the brief includes this block, and it references the REST endpoint for further clarity.

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 implies when to use it (when you need a market-wide risk appetite check) and provides a clear alternative ('One-call morning brief incl. this block: get_market_brief'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for an AI agent to decide.

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