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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses cache TTL (60s), cache bypass option, parallel execution of up to 12 underlying tools, and that it replaces an HTTP-burst fan-out. This provides useful context beyond what annotations would give, though it does not mention potential return size or data structure.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then adding usage context and parameter notes. Each sentence provides useful information, though the 'Replaces Brain's 24-72 HTTP-burst fan-out' detail is somewhat marketing-oriented but still explanatory.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, caching, and flags. However, it does not explain what a 'verdict' looks like, what the cluster outputs contain, or clarify candidate_weight_pct. These gaps reduce completeness for an agent trying to interpret and use the response.

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 description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. It explains include_smartmoney and include_transparency flags and the cache bypass behavior for cache_max_age_s. However, candidate_weight_pct is not mentioned anywhere in the description or schema, leaving a gap. The ticker parameter is self-evident but not enriched.

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 clearly states this is an OMNIBUS aggregation for one ticker, pulling both the 5-layer transparency and 7-layer smartmoney clusters in a single call. It identifies the tool's primary role as Brain's single-stock verdict path and differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on individual clusters or other functionalities.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided ('should I buy X?', 'what do you think of Y?', 'verdict on Z'). The description explains that it replaces a 24-72 HTTP-burst fan-out and mentions flags to skip clusters for comparison views. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. the individual cluster tools, though sibling names imply a choice.

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