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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose an important trait: the call costs $1.00 via x402. It also lists the brief's contents, implying a read-only report, but it never explicitly states read-only behavior, payment failure handling, or whether the charge applies per call.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble, listing the brief's components before the price. Some terms like 'armed fixtures' and 'gate set' are jargon that could slow an agent, but the structure is efficient.

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 two undocumented optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves key context missing: how equity and risk_pct affect the brief, and what the payment flow requires. It does enumerate return contents and state the price, but that is not enough to call it complete.

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 0% and the description does not mention the two parameters at all. An agent gets no guidance on what 'equity' or 'risk_pct' mean, their units, or that they are optional, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 the resource precisely as a 'Decision brief' and enumerates its contents (market regime, ranked funding-carry edges, avoid list, stand-down reasons, armed fixtures), so an agent knows what it produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling akari_* tools, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as akari_trade_plan, akari_market_report, or akari_board. The word 'Decision brief' hints at decision-support usage, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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