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

Given no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: deterministic decisions (ALLOW/REDUCE/BLOCK), 60s expiry, signed attestation, and composition of policy/regime/cost. It does not mention side effects or data persistence, which seems appropriate for a decision-only tool.

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 somewhat long but front-loads key info (outcomes, expiry, attestation). It could be trimmed slightly, but each sentence adds value. The structure is logical.

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 explains return values (decisions, reason codes, signed attestation) but lacks detail on output format. With 5 parameters and nested objects, it covers most parameter meanings (order, evidence, policy) but not state or payment_signature. Overall adequate but not exhaustive.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the 'order' object fields (symbol, side, notional_usd, order_type) and 'evidence' field (audit_score from audit_backtest). However, 'state' and 'payment_signature' are not elaborated.

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 as a 'Pre-trade decision gate for AI trading agents' and lists its deterministic outcomes (ALLOW, REDUCE, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pricing or audit_backtest by focusing on pre-trade authorization.

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 as a gate before trade execution but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it over siblings like get_regime_current or estimate_execution_cost. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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