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

Annotations already declare readonly=true and open-world=true. Beyond that, the description adds the scoring range (0-100, A-F), lists the factors considered (spread, slippage, orderbook depth, volatility, etc.), and clarifies the semantics of entry quality. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose (score type and range) and includes important details (factors, differentiation) without any wasted words. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given the three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and inputs. It mentions the output range and grade, and lists the input factors. It could be improved by specifying the exact return format (e.g., object with score and grade), but it is largely complete for an AI agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by linking the 'size_usdc' parameter to 'slippage at desired size' and implying that asset and direction are used to compute the score. However, it does not add substantial semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 produces an execution-quality score (0-100, A-F grade) for entering a position, listing specific factors (spread, slippage, depth, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself from conviction/direction scoring, referencing a sibling tool (get_conviction_score) and clarifying the focus on entry conditions.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when evaluating entry quality rather than directionality. It explicitly differentiates from 'conviction' (direction scoring), which is a likely alternative. While it could mention more alternatives or when not to use it, this is sufficient for a sibling-dense environment.

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