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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds the api:read scope requirement and clarifies what the numeric return values mean, which is genuine context beyond structured fields. It doesn't mention refresh cadence or staleness, so not a 5.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the resource, then the returned fields, then the usage trigger and auth note. Dense but every clause carries information; the stacked parentheses and em-dashes make it slightly harder to parse than an ideal split.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so with field names and value mappings, plus the auth requirement. Missing only operational details such as data freshness or caching, which matter for a regime signal used before sizing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter behavior to explain. The description correctly adds nothing here and focuses on return semantics instead.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Current global market regime classification") and enumerates the exact fields returned, including the encoding of regime_label and the +1/0/-1 mapping of regime_state. That level of specificity distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_sentiment or get_market_brief.

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?

"Use to adapt strategy to conditions before sizing or proposing anything" gives a concrete decision point in the workflow. It stops short of naming alternative tools (get_sentiment, get_market_brief, get_liquidation_map) or stating when this is not needed, so no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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