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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool is a read of the market tape, returns structured regime data, and operates with a one-market-day delay on the free tier. It also details the posture fields returned for each book, which is useful behavioral context beyond the name alone.

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 but every sentence earns its place: purpose, output contents, usage timing, tier limitation, live alternative, and field-level details. It is front-loaded with the core concept and does not waste words. The structure is easy to scan and decision-relevant.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates the books covered, the regime posture fields, the free-tier delay, and the live sibling. An agent can confidently call this tool and understand what to expect without additional context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing undocumented. The description adds value by explaining what the returned regime verdict represents and how it is structured across books. This meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool and slightly exceeds it by providing output context.

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 clearly defines the tool as a top-down market read that returns a regime verdict, mode, and permission ladder across multiple books. It also names the live sibling, get_market_regime_live, and differentiates this tool as the free, delayed version. The verb and resource are specific, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says to check this tool before acting on any name-level signal, which is strong usage guidance. It also distinguishes the free delayed tier from the pay-per-call live sibling, giving the agent a clear alternative. It does not fully spell out when to choose the live version vs. this one, but the context is clear.

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