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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions scoring and labeling but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or free of side effects. The lack of any indication of permissions or side effects leaves transparency insufficient.

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 overly verbose and includes irrelevant details such as 'Coil's own engine defers new entries' and 'pay-per-call'. It would benefit from a more focused and concise explanation.

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?

The description explains the metrics and labels but does not specify the output format or structure. Given the lack of an output schema, this omission leaves the tool's return value unclear.

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, and the schema confirms this. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it also does not explicitly state that no input is required, leaving a minor gap.

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 it is a 'Sector and macro ROTATION map: where the money is going.' This conveys the core purpose, but the subsequent jargon about labels and metrics muddies it slightly.

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 includes confusing references to 'see `reading`', 'Coil's own engine', and 'Live sibling' without clear explanation. It does not effectively guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_rotation_live.

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