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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It responsibly reveals the query cost (1 allocation), authentication requirement (X-Wallet header), and tier/trial restrictions, which are critical operational details beyond what the schema provides.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise requirement and cost details. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, prerequisites, cost, authentication, and access constraints. For a simple one-parameter tool, this provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.

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 100% and the schema already documents prediction_hash. The description reinforces that it comes from a previous navigate call, but does not add substantially new parameter-level detail beyond the schema's own description.

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 uses a specific verb ('explains') with a clear object ('a previous navigate response') and adds concrete context about wave mechanics grounding. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like factorguide_diagnose and factorguide_report_outcome.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite (prediction_hash from a prior factorguide_navigate call), making the intended usage clear. It also provides context on when it's applicable (starter/professional tiers) and free trial limits, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it.

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