create_kronos_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool costs $0.15 USDC and creates an 'auditable' entry, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not explain side effects, irreversibility, or what happens on success/failure, leaving a moderate transparency gap.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the cost detail efficiently.

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 having a cost and a unique creation purpose, the description does not explain what happens after creation, how to retrieve the entry, or why this tool should be preferred over others. The existence of 'audit_kronos_decision' as a sibling suggests a workflow, but the description is too terse to be fully complete for a paid, auditable action.

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 0%, and the description names extra fields (directional bias, calibrated confidence, decision_id) that are not part of the input schema, which only accepts 'symbol'. This creates confusion: an agent might think it can supply those fields, but the schema disallows them. The description fails to clarify the role of 'symbol' or how those other fields are determined, providing misleading guidance beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('Kronos market-intelligence journal entry'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling read/audit tools. The mention of directional bias, calibrated confidence, and decision_id further specifies the tool's purpose.

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 when to use it (to create an auditable journal entry) and the sibling tools are read/audit operations, so the usage context is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives.

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