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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and delivers substantial behavioral detail: the view is verbatim identical to the daily briefing card, reason codes are scrubbed on this customer surface, object_context.reverse_direction_conflict appears only under a specific local-vs-swing disagreement, and nullability conditions are spelled out. It also explicitly frames the output as a market-state reading and not a trade instruction.

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 dense and front-loaded with the primary purpose, but the long single-paragraph format with nested parentheticals makes it less scannable than ideal. Every sentence earns its place and no content is redundant, but the structure could be improved with bullet points or shorter sentences.

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 thoroughly explains return content: the composed card components, object_context block and its conditional fields, null behavior, and the relationship to other tools. It covers the complexity of the domain (reversal confirmation conflicts, narrative universe) without significant gaps.

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 the schema descriptions are already detailed (default TF, symbol universe examples). The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 opens with 'The engine's VIEW for a symbol' and enumerates the exact composed card contents (verdict, alignment, narrative, coordinates, receipts), making the verb+resource+scope explicit. It also distinguishes itself from get_market_state by explicitly stating when to prefer it over the alternative.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Prefer this over get_market_state when you want the interpreted view instead of raw engine fields.' It also establishes preconditions (null on non-trigger bars or outside narrative universe), demonstrates the tool's non-trade nature, and directs the agent to check decker.validate_intent before order execution.

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