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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the tool's output content — setup instructions and delivery channels (email/Telegram) — providing value beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: what the tool returns, when to invoke it, and what it includes. No further detail is needed.

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 input schema fully describes the single optional 'intent' parameter with an enum and clear description, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns available options for ongoing monitoring with concrete examples (price alerts, idea tracking, watchlist monitoring, scheduled digests) and setup instructions. It distinguishes itself from sibling market-data tools by focusing on monitoring/notifications rather than data retrieval.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call only when the user asks for ongoing monitoring or notifications' and 'never needed to answer a question.' This clearly delineates when and when-not to use the tool, making it easy for an agent to follow.

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