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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses the three output values, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or how the label is derived, so it doesn't add substantive behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its value set, then the usage cue. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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 no output schema, the description correctly names the returned categories, which is the main thing an agent needs. Missing only minor context such as staleness or whether the value is a snapshot vs. live computation.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing to document and the description correctly doesn't invent parameters. No additional meaning is required here.

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 resource (a categorical market-state indicator) and enumerates its possible values (GO / WAIT / CLOSE), which an agent can distinguish from data-returning siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast with near-neighbours like get_current_regime or get_state, so differentiation is only implied.

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?

"Call this when you need a single categorical market-state label" gives a usage condition, but no exclusions and no named alternative. An agent choosing between this, get_current_regime, get_state and get_market gets only a hint, not routing guidance.

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