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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does substantial work: it discloses deterministic assembly logic, the upper/lower timeframe rule, and two critical interpretive caveats ('aligned' ≠ all gates GO; entry.mode='지금' ≠ trigger confirmed). It also enumerates the return dimensions despite having no output schema.

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 opens with a compact definition and field list, then layers role instructions, scope hint, and caveats in order of importance. Though long, every sentence contributes—the warnings prevent misinterpretation—and there is no padding.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description enumerates all output components, explains the source/target timeframe relationship, and warns about the two most likely misreadings. The only minor gap is defining 'matrix_summary[].gate', but the description still tells the agent exactly what to check.

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%, and the schema already documents symbol as optional with aliases and omission behavior. The description adds the count 'all 14 universe symbols' and clarifies scope, but that is marginal over the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies that this tool produces a 'single deterministic machine verdict' combining all live timeframes, naming the exact output dimensions (direction, grade, entry, stop, target, RR, switch coordinate). It positions it as 'the single judgment authority,' so an agent can distinguish its role from other tools even without explicit sibling names.

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?

It provides clear usage guidance: it is the final authority for coordinates ('narrate or filter it, do not re-decide coordinates') and explains scoping with/without symbol ('Omit symbol for all 14 universe symbols'). However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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