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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds determinism ('deterministic') and reinforces the no-side-effects contract, but says nothing about how evidence bounds the analysis or what happens on insufficient evidence.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and the safety constraint immediately after. Nothing is padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being purely efficient.

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?

With an untyped array parameter, two required inputs, no output schema, and no annotations explaining return shape, the description leaves the most important caller question unanswered: what evidence format is required for the analysis to succeed. Adequate for a zero-param tool, not for this one.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for two required parameters — and it fails. It never explains what 'instrument' accepts (ticker, exchange-qualified symbol?) or what shape each 'evidence' array element must take, despite the array being untyped.

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 verb 'Run' and object 'market analysis' are identifiable, and 'Does not execute trades' clarifies the operation type. However, 'deterministic evidence-bounded' is opaque jargon, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like cascade_capsule or cascade_status.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over cascade_capsule, cascade_review_jev, or cascade_status, nor any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the negative 'does not execute trades'. The agent must infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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