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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, open-world, destructive-capable tool, and the description adds real context on top: required scopes (mcp:read for reads, trade:propose for the write), a dry-run path, and the [DATA]/[PROXY]/[UNAVAILABLE] provenance policy with 'gaps are never synthesized'. It still does not say what a write overwrites if a 'Daily analysis' entry already exists, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the build action and followed by permissions and provenance, with no filler. The parenthetical section list is long but each item carries information about output composition.

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 multi-source, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers output composition, provenance semantics, auth needs, and the dry-run alternative, which is what an agent needs to invoke it safely. Remaining gap is handling of an existing diary entry on write, which is material given the destructive annotation.

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 description earns more by explaining that write controls recording into diary_day_notes and that write:false produces a dry run, and by tying the write path to the trade:propose scope. The day parameter's default is already covered by 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 verb and artifact ('Build the morning brief') and enumerates its sections (risk header, positions, 5-venue funding/OI, liquidation proxy, macro 24h, regime, JEV bias), then states where the result lands (the day's 'Daily analysis' in the diary). This is well beyond a restatement of the name. It stops short of 5 because the overlap with sibling diary/market tools (propose_diary_note, analyze_market, read_news_brief) is left for the caller to infer.

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 context is implied rather than stated: it is a pre-trading routine that composes several reads and a diary write, and 'pass write:false for a dry run' is a concrete conditional. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus alternatives such as analyze_market or read_news_brief, and no stated prerequisites beyond permissions.

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