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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral qualifier — these are 'generic' windows rather than personalized ones — but says nothing about scope, granularity, or what a 'caution window' means in practice.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the deliverable, followed by compact bracketed metadata. Little waste, though the bracket block mainly restates group/endpoint/cost rather than enriching the prose.

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 output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a domain-specific timing tool the description never clarifies what a caution window contains (dates, severity, aspects) or how it should be applied, leaving it minimally adequate.

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 is 67%: fields and precision are self-documented, date carries a pattern but no prose. The description only restates '[Required: date]', adding no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 deliverable — caution windows for market timing — and enumerates the drivers (Mercury Rx, eclipses, Mars Rx, macro aspects), which separates it from siblings like financial_lucky_day or wealth_cycle. It lacks an explicit 'unlike X' routing statement, so it is clear but not differentiated by name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus other financial tools (lucky_day, risk_tolerance, wealth_cycle), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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