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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden — and it does meaningful work: it names the returned fields, states it is a plain-language read of the current moment, warns that state.direction can diverge from assembly.direction, and declares 'engine-native raw fields are not exposed here.' It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the output-shape and caveat disclosure is well above baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and every clause carries information (field inventory, the assembly shortcut, the direction caveat). It is dense and parenthesis-heavy, but there is no filler sentence to cut.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description has to explain returns — which it does (state, mtf.by_tf, narrative, assembly fields and their meanings), plus a key interpretive pitfall. Missing only peripheral details like pagination or the symbol format, which the schema's example covers.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage the schema documents symbol and include_tfs, and tf is enum-constrained. The description gestures at parameters conceptually ('this timeframe', 'the same for other timeframes'), which loosely maps to tf and include_tfs, but adds no syntax, defaults, or usage detail beyond the schema, so 3 is the right baseline.

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?

States a specific verb-like operation ('how ONE timeframe looks right now, in plain language') and enumerates the payload (state, mtf.by_tf, narrative, assembly). It explicitly differentiates itself from decker.get_assembly and decker.get_market_state, so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use decker.get_assembly with detail=true for full detail, decker.get_market_state for the structured per-timeframe judgment. It also gives a when-not/interpretation rule ('state.direction is only this timeframe's direction ... for the decision use assembly').

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