fahali_get_symbol_decision

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive semantics, so the description's added value here is real: it discloses that the committee evidence is 'non-binding', that it is a thin alias performing 'no second computation', and that the payload includes runtime telemetry. It does not mention rate limits or entitlement behavior for contagion (that is only in the schema), but it materially extends the annotation profile.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core identity and the 'no second computation' caveat front-loaded; nothing is redundant. The dense noun-stacking ('canonical-roster engine rows', 'runtime telemetry') costs some readability but does not waste space.

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 seven-parameter, output-schema-backed read tool, the description covers what is returned, the non-binding nature of evidence, and the alias/no-recompute behavior. The one gap is that it never identifies which sibling is the 'canonical arbiter', so an agent cannot fully reason about duplication with fahali_get_market_decision.

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 coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions for limit, since, detail, symbols, includeContagion, and include_withheld, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about how any of these seven parameters affect the response, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: 'Primary single-instrument judgment' returning an authoritative direction, forecast, record, and invalidation. The 'single-instrument' qualifier meaningfully separates it from fahali_get_market_decision and fahali_get_portfolio_decision, though the jargon ('canonical arbiter', 'thin alias') is not defined.

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?

'Primary single-instrument judgment' implies it is the default entry point for one symbol, which is implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer fahali_get_market_decision or fahali_get_portfolio_decision, and gives no explicit exclusions or prerequisites, leaving routing to inference.

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