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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: results are returned 'best match first' (result ordering) and the call 'never accrues signal' (no side effects or signal tracking). It still omits pagination/truncation behavior, but it adds context annotations don't provide.

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 with zero padding. The core resolution behavior is front-loaded before the clarifying 'never accrues signal' clause.

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, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, ordering, and no-accrual behavior. The only gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which is minor.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the 'q' format by naming 'ticker or company name', and 'best match first' hints at ranking, but the 'limit' parameter (default 8) is never addressed. Partial compensation only.

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+resource: 'Resolve free text (ticker or company name) to known Rayana AI symbols.' That is precise and distinguishable from the analysis-oriented siblings (signals, trends, consensus). It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'Pure resolution — never accrues signal' implies this is a lookup-only step, which hints at usage, but the agent must infer when to call it versus rayana_ai_ticker or rayana_ai_signals.

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