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 thoroughly explains the conditional response structure, the contents of the alternative block, and the additive schema promise. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe error handling, but the focus on output structure provides substantial transparency beyond a simple 'get setups' statement.

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 dense but well-structured, with each sentence adding unique value: purpose, condition for alternatives, structure of alternatives, example use, and schema compatibility. It is longer than ideal but appropriate for the complex conditional behavior it describes. No word is wasted.

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 tool with no output schema and two simple parameters, the description comprehensively covers the conditional response and the alternative basket. However, it leaves a gap by referencing 'v2.41' without explaining what the primary `setups` array contains, which could confuse an agent unfamiliar with that version. It also does not cover parameter effects on 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 0%, and the description does not mention `limit` or `min_conviction` at all. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional context, usage nuances, or interaction effects, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 identifies the tool as providing 'Top trade setups from the decision engine' and highlights a unique feature: defensive-alternates baked in. It explains the conditional `regime_warranted_alternative` block, which distinguishes it from generic list tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', and does not directly contrast with sibling tools such as `tengu_copilot_top_picks`.

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 explains when the alternative block appears (>=70% same direction across 3+ picks) and gives an example of when the brain should consume it, implying the tool is used for trade setups that may need risk-frame fallbacks. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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