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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), description states it returns a stance with reason+confidence, that it abstains with no_signal when no coverage, and that it vets against narrative convergence and divergence. It also explicitly says 'Read-only, NOT a trade recommendation'. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: (1) purpose, (2) return value, (3) usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (stance types, reason, confidence). It covers usage context and abstention behavior. Minor gaps: no explanation of optional parameters or detailed logic of 'cross-source narrative convergence', but overall sufficient given the complexity.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions symbol and side as part of the candidate trade, providing context for the required parameters. However, it does not explain the optional parameters 'source' and 'horizon', leaving ambiguity. This partial coverage earns a 3.

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 the tool checks whether the narrative layer supports/cautions/contradicts a trade candidate, with specific verb 'vet' and resource 'trade candidate against narratives'. It distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as a second opinion after strategy/TA, while siblings like get_clean_feed and get_market_narratives are likely data retrieval tools.

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 'Call it as a second opinion after your own strategy/TA has a candidate {symbol, side}', indicating when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare directly to siblings, but the context strongly implies it should not replace primary analysis. Missing explicit exclusions but provides sufficient context.

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