fahali_get_fall_warnings

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

Annotations already establish a safe read (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real substance: calibration is disclosed via the served `fit` block, unmeasured inputs are framed as missing rather than calm, and "late" is explicitly not a claim. These are meaningful caveats an agent would not get from structured fields.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the middle sentence is a raw enumeration of output field names (findings[], matchedTrackRecord, recordMatchReason, ownStrataCount, record.withheldOnly) that an output schema already covers, and the jargon density makes it slower to parse than needed.

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 semantically heavy risk-board tool with an output schema present, the description covers the conceptual burden well: what the probability means, that calibration is conditional, and how to read strata versus headline. Return-value detail is redundant but not missing anything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about limit, since, detail, symbols or include_withheld, leaving baseline 3 as the correct ceiling for this dimension.

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 names the specific resource and horizon: an 8-hour fall-warning board with standing warnings at probability P of a >=5% drawdown within 8h, plus attribution, input census and judged record. That is far more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as fahali_get_flash_crash_risk or fahali_get_market_risk_score.

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?

Guidance given is about interpretation rather than selection: "read the own stratum, never the headline," "Unmeasured inputs are missing data, never calm." Those are useful directives, but there is no statement of when to call this versus the flash-crash or risk-score siblings, and no exclusion conditions.

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