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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive query, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully narrows scope to open-market sells by distinct insiders, but says nothing about result ordering, thresholds applied server-side, or empty-result behavior.

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 compact sentences with the qualifying condition front-loaded and a short reinforcing tag. No filler, though the 'Mass-exit detector' fragment is marketing flavor rather than functional information.

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 does not say what a returned record contains (issuer, insider count, aggregate value) or how results are ranked, which an agent needs to interpret results. For a zero-required-parameter query tool it is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 days, min_usd and min_insiders are already fully documented with defaults and bounds. The description only echoes the 'multiple distinct insiders' and 'window' concepts, adding no format or interaction detail 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?

States a concrete resource (companies) and the precise qualifying condition: multiple distinct insiders selling open-market stock within a window. 'Mass-exit detector' reinforces the intent. It never names its obvious counterpart cluster_buys, so sibling differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as cluster_buys or company_insider_pulse, despite a near-identical sibling existing. The 'mass-exit detector' label hints at a use case but offers no routing logic.

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