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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers richly: TTL, fail-closed semantics, statuses, signature field, issuer, latency, live/demo mode, schema version, and the explicit rule that the agent must halt if the tool is unreachable. This exceeds what a safe-read annotation would have provided.

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 heavily over-sized for a one-parameter tool. It repeats the full 28-exchange list already present in the schema enum and includes regulatory citations, a model-agnostic claim, and endorsement disclaimers that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool. While the core safety guidance is front-loaded, the wall of text significantly hurts readability.

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, the description fully documents the return shape, failure semantics, TTL, cryptographic fields, and the required downstream attestation_ref usage. For a high-stakes pre-trade gate, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it safely and interpret the result correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already defines the MIC enum and provides examples. The description adds meaning by explaining that the receipt is scoped to a specific exchange, listing all 28 MICs with friendly names, and explicitly directing agents to call list_exchanges for discovery. That is meaningful value beyond the raw enum.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it returns an 'Ed25519-signed market-state receipt' for pre-trade verification. It clearly frames the tool as a safety gate across exchanges, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_market_schedule and list_exchanges, and the first sentence alone tells an agent exactly what this tool is for.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and directive: 'call this BEFORE executing any trade' and 'USE AS: pre-trade check, pre-trade verification gate, pre-execution gate'. It also states when NOT to act — UNKNOWN/HALTED must be treated as closed, expired receipts must not be used, and the trade must not execute if the tool is unreachable. This is model-agnostic guidance that leaves no room for inference.

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