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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses substantive behavior: values may be null, missing blocks surface in a `gaps` field, nothing is ever synthesized, the brief is deterministic, and results should be cited as 'observed at <time>'. It also reinforces the read-only contract with "Never trades, never writes", which is consistent with readOnlyHint=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?

The read-only constraint is front-loaded and every parenthetical block name earns its place by telling the agent what to expect. The single dense run-on sentence with nested parentheses is harder to scan than a short bulleted list would be, which keeps it from a 5.

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 carries the full burden of describing return contents, and it does so block by block while also covering null handling, gaps, and citation format. For a read-only aggregate tool with three optional parameters, nothing material is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents ranges and defaults for all three parameters. The description only restates the defaults (days 30, notional_usd 10000, fee_bps 5) and adds a light note that notional_usd and fee_bps price the carry board and fee drag — useful but marginal over 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 resource ("one-shot summary of the user's Insights page") and then enumerates the constituent blocks — market regime, funding extremes, carry board, DEX perp share, fee drag, headlines, brief — so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of naming how this differs from adjacent siblings such as analyze_market or daily_prep, which may overlap on market-regime content.

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?

"One-shot summary" implies a first-look overview use case, and the optional-argument defaults hint at the typical call shape. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives like analyze_market or read_news_brief, so the agent must infer placement in the workflow.

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