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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the output is categorical, focused on volatility/drawdown, and based on comparison to a 30-day baseline. It omits exact thresholds or classifier internals, but for a read-only indicator this is sufficient.

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 most useful information is front-loaded: output category, asset scope, use case, and baseline behavior appear early. The final sentence restating the asset enum is mildly redundant with the schema but does not significantly hurt 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only classifier with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the return scale, the asset set, the classification baseline, and the intended use. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool 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?

The only parameter, asset, is already fully documented in the schema with an enum and description, giving 100% schema coverage. The description's final sentence merely repeats that enum, adding no new parameter semantics.

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 it classifies volatility/drawdown risk regime for a major crypto asset, returning low/med/high, and gives the asset list. It references crypto_regime but does not sharply differentiate the two, so an agent may need extra inference to choose between them.

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?

It explicitly names practical use cases—position sizing and stop-placement logic—and explains the output as volatility elevation relative to a 30-day baseline. It does not state when not to use it or exactly how it differs from crypto_regime or the generic risk sibling, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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