market_regime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the inputs (unemployment, PMI, yield curve, credit spreads) that inform the phase, going beyond the annotation baseline. However, it could mention data freshness or potential delays.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and possible values, the second briefly explains the basis. No extraneous words, front-loaded with the core function.

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 largely complete. It clearly states the output and inputs. It could be slightly enhanced by mentioning the return format (e.g., a string) or example values.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so no additional parameter description is needed. The description correctly focuses on the output and inputs, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 states the tool returns the current market cycle phase (EARLY_CYCLE, MID_CYCLE, LATE_CYCLE, or RECESSION) and lists the underlying indicators (unemployment trend, ISM PMI, yield curve, credit spreads). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recession_probability or yield_curve.

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 implies usage when an overall cycle phase is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like recession_indicators or capital_rotation_score. No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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