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

Adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the score is present valuation versus history, not a forecast or timing signal. Annotations already cover safety and idempotency; the remaining gap is minor because the return value is described at a high level.

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?

Front-loads the core definition, then usage boundaries, then limitations. Three short paragraphs with no wasted text, and each sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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?

Complete for a zero-parameter, read-only valuation tool: it defines the returned score, scale, inputs, intended scope, exclusions, and interpretation caveats. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently explains what comes back.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline is 4 under the scoring rules for zero-parameter tools.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the Zyberno Market Valuation Score, a 0–100 reading of US equity market valuation relative to history. It also names the underlying components and explicitly distinguishes the tool from individual-company, sector, or index-level valuation tools.

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?

Gives clear positive usage guidance (market-wide valuation questions) and explicit exclusions (not individual companies, sectors, or index price levels). It does not name the specific sibling tools to use instead, so it stops short of fully explicit alternative routing.

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