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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further with 'Compute-heavy; cached per day,' which tells the agent about latency and that results are stable within a day — non-obvious context that isn't in the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then mode semantics, then the caching caveat. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does name the key fields (insider signals with entry/exit levels, ranked ideas). Minor gaps remain around pagination/limit interaction and how as_of_date affects the 'pre-computed' cache.

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 only 33%, so the description has to carry weight; it explains what the 'side' enum values actually return, which is meaningful beyond the bare enum. But 'limit' and 'as_of_date' get no elaboration beyond the schema's own short date hint, leaving part of the gap unfilled.

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 verb and resource ('Get InsiderAlpha's pre-computed daily trading plan') and clarifies the payload ('alpha-scored insider signals with entry/exit levels'). It differentiates content from generic siblings like get_market_overview, though it never names a sibling it should be chosen over.

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 side='buy'/'sell' split implies what each mode returns, which helps an agent pick a mode. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like get_unfiltered_purchases or get_congress_trades, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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