Compute Dqs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the evaluation basis (process vs outcome, five named factors), which is genuinely useful. But it never explains why a 'compute' operation is not read-only — whether it persists a score, writes state, or has side effects — so a real behavioral gap remains.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the timing constraint, followed by the factor list. Nothing is padding, though the factor enumeration could have been left to explain further downstream detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained here. The description supplies the scoring model at a level suitable for deciding to call it. It is slightly incomplete on side effects and on how the five factors combine, but covers the essentials for a scoring tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all seven inputs. The description does indirectly map factors to inputs (context_regime to regime match, proposed_lot_size to Kelly sizing), which adds orientation, but provides no syntax, format, or fallback behavior beyond that.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Compute Decision Quality Score') and scopes it to timing ('before executing a trade'), then enumerates the five scoring factors. That is far more concrete than a restated title. It stops short of differentiating itself from close siblings like check_trade_legitimacy or validate_strategy, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is a clear timing cue ('before executing a trade'), which implies the intended usage point. However, no alternative or exclusion is named despite several overlapping siblings (check_trade_legitimacy, validate_strategy, create_trading_plan), so the agent must infer which pre-trade check applies.

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