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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile, and the description layers on real operational context: self-caching for 15 minutes, no parameters (so no server-side filtering is possible), all values normalized rather than raw prices, every line carrying a unit string, and explicit data gaps (junk-credit-spread has no lines, economic-calendar events excluded). These caveats materially change how an agent should interpret the response and are not derivable from annotations.

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 resource name followed by the payload breakdown, and every clause carries information. It is dense — nested parentheses and internal jargon like 'flips7d' and 'ratios vs their MAs' — but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does: three named components, units on lines, normalization rules, caching, and known omissions. An agent can predict the response shape and limitations without inspecting anything else.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description usefully confirms 'No parameters' — telling the agent there is no date-range, detector, or granularity control and the full 30-day payload is always returned. Nothing further is needed.

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 the specific resource (Market Health history) and enumerates the three payload components: composite risk-score snapshots, per-detector derived line series, and signalChanges. The dataset is clearly distinct from the sibling tools by content, though the description never names a sibling to disambiguate against get_market_breadth or get_cross_asset_regime.

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?

An agent can infer this is the historical/trend view (30-day window, hourly, 7-day flip counts) versus presumably current-state siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is implied by the data contents rather than stated.

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