evaluate_analysis_overlay_outcome

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

Even though no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the read-only default, the temporary timeframe change with restoration, explicit reporting of restoration failures, and the non-guessing policy for same-bar ordering, gaps, and incomplete history. This is genuinely informative beyond any structured annotation.

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 dense but front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by scoping constraints, edge-case handling, and side-effect behavior. Every sentence contributes a distinct constraint or behavioral guarantee, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description covers many edge cases and side effects, which is valuable for a tool with no output schema. However, it never states what the evaluation actually returns—e.g., an outcome label, a confidence level, or a structured result object. It says results are 'reported as ambiguous or incomplete' and that restoration failures are 'returned explicitly,' but the return contract remains underspecified.

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 57%, so the description does not need to compensate entirely, but it adds real value for evaluation_timeframe by explaining that it temporarily changes only the selected chart, captures evidence, and restores afterward. It also ties expected_timeframe to verification semantics. A few parameters like chart_index remain unelaborated, but their meaning is reasonably inferable from context.

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 ('Evaluate') and names a precise resource: 'the first confirmed Target-versus-Stop outcome of an audited Bushido Analysis Overlay.' It clearly delimits the scope with constraints like 'only loaded, closed OHLCV bars after the analysis time' and distinguishes itself from batch or status tools like evaluate_due_analyses by focusing on a single overlay's first confirmed outcome.

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 provides clear context on when this tool applies: after an analysis, with loaded closed bars, and excluding forming bars. It gives an explicit exclusion for calendar-month charts. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so the routing is implied rather than stated, but the prerequisites and non-evaluable cases are concrete.

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