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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: results are computed from live 24h data (so they are time-sensitive, not static), produced by a production-grade classifier, and surface an extra grid_suitability verdict beyond the regime label. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the call returns and how fresh it is.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core classification output, followed by the verdict and usage guidance. The only waste is that the asset list in the third sentence duplicates the schema enum, which is already fully specified; otherwise every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape. It names the regime categories and the grid_suitability verdict, but leaves ambiguous whether the response returns both together, separately, or with additional fields like confidence or timestamp. For a 1-parameter tool with read-only annotations this is mostly adequate but has a clear gap around the exact return structure.

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 100% and the asset parameter is fully documented with an enum and description, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces which assets are relevant by listing them in prose and explains the strategic context, but it does not add meaningfully new semantics about the parameter's format or interpretation beyond the schema.

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 names a specific output (market regime: chop/trend_up/trend_down/high_vol), the computation basis (live 24h market structure), and the assets covered. It is clearly not a generic or tautological statement. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'regime', whose purpose likely overlaps, so it misses the sibling-distinguishing criterion for a 5.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Use this before deciding to deploy a grid bot, mean-reversion strategy, or trend-follow strategy'. This is actionable and tied to a clear workflow. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as the sibling 'regime' tool, so it stops 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.