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

The description substantially exceeds what the annotations already declare. It discloses that the tool repeats a rights check, never contacts external sources, is deterministic and bounded, is metadata-only, and does not treat stream attestations as per-order authority. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 description is dense but well-structured: the first sentence defines the deliverable and its contents, the second covers operational constraints, and the third clarifies exclusions. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or vague padding. The most important identity information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It enumerates the projected output fields and documents the important safety and non-execution characteristics. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret what kind of data it will receive.

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 input schema is empty with additionalProperties false, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Schema coverage is effectively 100%, and the description correctly focuses on what the derived context contains rather than parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 identifies the tool as a deterministic, cache-only projection of the last completed Seiche board and enumerates the specific data it exposes: funding regime, stress index, coverage, staleness counts, and clocks. It differentiates itself from siblings through explicit constraints such as 'not order-bound', 'non-executable', and 'never real-money eligible'. This is far more specific than a tautology and gives an agent a concrete basis for selecting it.

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?

The description gives clear context: this is cache-only derived context for trade-safety guards, and it explicitly excludes use cases involving live data, order binding, real-money eligibility, or stream-attestation authority. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'use X instead' routing, but the when/when-not boundaries are strong enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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