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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and largely does: it discloses the update cadence (every 30 minutes), the auth/cost profile (FREE, no API key), the deterministic classification thresholds, and the return fields. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but the operational profile is well conveyed.

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?

Front-loaded with the classification logic, then returns, then usage, then operational notes. Dense but every sentence (regime rules, return fields, sibling pairing, cadence, cost) carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the return fields (regime, confidence, MA comparison, VIX, duration). No annotations, but safety profile is trivial for a read-only detection tool. Nearly complete, missing only edge-case behavior when data is unavailable.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs since there are none.

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?

States a specific verb ('detect') plus resource ('current market regime') and enumerates the four possible outputs (BULL, BEAR, SIDEWAYS, CRISIS) with the quantitative rule for each. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_risk_index or get_trading_signals.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use alongside get_risk_index before trading decisions,' naming a sibling and the workflow context. It gives clear when-to-use guidance but no when-not-to-use or boundary conditions versus the other signal tools.

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