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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only status query for active vetoes and how to interpret the result for signal trust. It does not mention rate limits or error cases, but the simple zero-parameter nature reduces the need for such caveats.

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: the first clause states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds actionable use context. The semicolon and capitalized 'PRIMARY' keep it structured without waste. Every word 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?

As a zero-parameter status tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool reports, why it is important, and when to call it. It could theoretically list exact return fields, but the described granularity of veto categories is sufficient for its diagnostic role among many signal-related siblings.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no meaning. The description does not need to explain arguments, and it fully compensates by describing what the tool reports and why it matters. A score of 4 matches the baseline for parameter-free tools.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: it reports the active veto state over signals, enumerating risk, regime, and circuit-breaker vetoes. This distinguishes it from sibling signal generation or analysis tools by focusing on the suppression status rather than the signals themselves.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call it before trusting any signal read and as the primary check for 'why isn't the system acting on <ticker>?' This gives clear context but does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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