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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the response is deliberately truncated ('top 3 dots (symbol+band only)') and the hit-rate is 'simulated', which warns the agent the metric is not a real backtest. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or freshness/latency guarantees.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence lists the payload, followed by one short upsell sentence with prices that earns its place by routing the agent to paid alternatives. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 and no annotations, the description must explain the return shape, and it does by naming the included fields. It is adequate for a zero-parameter read tool, though it omits rate limits and how the simulated metric should be interpreted.

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 and the schema is empty at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify.

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+resource ('Free partial live brief') and enumerates the exact fields returned: regime score, green/red counts, top 3 dots, simulated 7d hit-rate. It also flags the resource as a truncated preview ('partial', 'symbol+band only'). It does not name sibling tools like get_daily_brief or get_band_dots, referring to paid endpoints by API path instead, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 word 'Free' plus the upsell list implies this is the no-cost entry point and that fuller data lives behind /api/brief, /api/dots, /api/agent. That is an implicit when-to-use signal, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling tools such as get_daily_brief or get_band_dots, nor any exclusion guidance.

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