bold_action

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description ('identifies') aligns with. The description adds the concept of 'irreversible move', which hints at strategic impact but does not clarify what happens to market data, permissions, or rate limits. Annotations already cover safety, so the description adds modest context.

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?

Description is a single sentence, no wasted words. However, it is front-loaded with dense, proprietary terminology that could be simplified for broader comprehension.

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?

Given no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., a list, a string, a plan). It describes the output conceptually ('move') but not its structure. For a one-parameter read-only tool, this is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 only parameter, 'market_name', is 100% documented in the schema description ('The market/pipeline slug'). The tool description does not add extra meaning or formatting details beyond the schema, 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?

Description specifies the tool identifies 'the single highest-leverage irreversible move' for specific strategic goals (credibility compression, ICP surface area expansion). This clearly states the action and target domain, but the jargon may obscure meaning for some agents.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., 'autonomy', 'scout'). The purpose is specific, but there is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context.

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