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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the score is an uncalibrated heuristic, breadth is a proxy not true BTC dominance, and the calculation inputs (relative-strength breadth + correlation trend). This adds valuable interpretive context and aligns with the read-only hint.

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, consisting of four sentences that each carry meaning: purpose, score range, calculation, caveats, and a REST reference. It is front-loaded with context and does not waste words.

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 tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is comprehensive. It explains the concept, the heuristic's limitations, and references the REST endpoint, covering all essential contextual aspects.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema fully covers inputs. Baseline 4 is appropriate, and the description adds no parameter details because there are none to describe.

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 identifies the tool as an altseason/rotation read, specifying a verb ('read') and resource (capital rotation), and introduces a distinctive metric (rotation_score). It differentiates from siblings like get_correlation or get_market_regime by narrowing focus to rotation.

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 usage for assessing capital rotation ('[CONTEXT] Altseason/rotation read') and includes limitations, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, making it implied rather than explicit.

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