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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds critically useful behavior: it explains the ~4-hour production cadence, the exact meaning of staleness (including that a normal Fri→Mon gap does not trip it), the point-in-time nature of market_context (not live), and the 'always in sync' guarantee. This goes well beyond annotations and materially informs how an agent interprets results.

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?

Despite being long, the description is tightly structured with a clear front-loaded purpose, then bulleted field groupings. Every section adds unique information—pipeline cadence, staleness semantics, snapshot caveats, Pro-tier note—and there is no fluff. The structure makes it scannable and each sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (dual assessments, many fields, staleness, pipeline info, alternatives), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the output schema fields, the meaning of indicators, the point-in-time caveat, and even addresses edge cases like missing timestamps. Nothing an agent needs to use the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage for history_count is 100%: the schema already states 'Include the last N prior assessments for each of regime and outlook (0-3, default 0)'. The description repeats this almost verbatim, adding no new semantics. Since schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately states the tool returns a combined AI market assessment with two distinct perspectives (regime and outlook), with explicit verbs and resources. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's a single call combining both, and later points to get_market_pulse for live prices, so an agent can differentiate it without opening other schemas.

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 gives explicit usage contexts: regime for position sizing/asset allocation, outlook for sector preference/directional bias. It also explicitly says to use get_market_pulse for live prices, and notes the 'Pro tier only' restriction. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, referencing an alternative directly.

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