get_reality_check

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It comprehensively enumerates output components (executive summary, scores, regime, etc.) but omits operational characteristics critical for a heavy aggregation tool: latency expectations, computational cost, caching behavior, or read-only safety assurances.

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 value proposition ('The master tool'). The enumerated list of briefing components is long but necessary to communicate scope breadth efficiently. Final sentence delivers clear usage directive. Minimal waste despite density of information.

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?

Despite lacking output schema and annotations, description compensates by detailing the 10+ output sections (executive summary, risk scores, etc.). Adequate for a zero-parameter aggregation tool, though could enhance with performance warnings given 'ALL data sources' complexity.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, zero-parameter tools receive baseline 4. The description appropriately acknowledges no configuration is needed by not mentioning parameters, consistent with the empty schema.

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 specific action (synthesizes ALL data sources) and output type (unified financial reality briefing). Explicitly positions itself as the 'master tool' against 20+ specialized siblings (get_macro_context, get_asset_context, etc.), clearly distinguishing its comprehensive scope from domain-specific alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this before any financially consequential decision'). While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, the 'master tool' framing effectively implies this is the entry point before drilling down with specialized tools.

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