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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only lists return types and parameters, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any external calls, error conditions, or typical side effects. The absence of such details leaves significant uncertainty.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and outputs. Every word contributes; no fluff. It could add more detail without harming conciseness, but as it stands it is tightly structured.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must clarify the return structure, but it only lists field names without defining them (e.g., what does z-score mean? what values can signal take?). Similarly, it does not explain maxNeutralUsd or the recommended action. An agent would still be guessing about expected behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It merely lists parameter names and marks maxSizeUsd as an optional cap, which barely extends the schema. It does not explain what exchangeA/exchangeB represent, what symbol means, or how maxSizeUsd affects the signal.

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 states a specific combined purpose ('basis regime + liquidity check') and lists concrete outputs (signal, z-score, maxNeutralUsd, recommended action). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_basis_regime and analyze_pair_liquidity which each cover only one aspect.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when it is the right choice, or any exclusions. An agent cannot infer when to pick this over get_basis_regime or analyze_pair_liquidity.

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