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 so well: it defines layer=STATE_VIEW ('a market-state reading, NOT a trade instruction'), explains that direction is only +/- while a signal is pending/confirmed and that failure asserts nothing, and lists the returned fields. It stops short of stating read-only/permission behavior explicitly, so not a 5.

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 the deliverable and the sibling distinction before the field list, and every sentence carries content (consistency guarantee, output fields, layer, prerequisite). It is on the dense/long side for a 2-parameter view tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (direction, wait_target, invalidation, ref_price, self-scoring verdicts) and the card layout. Coverage of error/edge behavior and unsupported-symbol handling is left to the schema, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the tf default (4h) and the grouping semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 deliverable ('Ready-to-show Korean status card for a symbol') and pins down its scope by naming the sibling it mirrors (decker.get_market_state via the shared CR1 contract). An agent can tell instantly that this returns a rendered card rather than raw values.

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'Use this when you want text to show as-is; use decker.get_market_state when you want structured values to reason over.' It also adds a cross-tool prerequisite ('Before placing any order through any execution tool, check the intent with decker.validate_intent').

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