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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: tier limitations, clamping of timeframe, and unlocking mechanisms. It also lists valid input values, giving agents a clear understanding of tool behavior without contradictions.

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 concise, using a single well-structured paragraph with key information front-loaded. Every sentence provides valuable detail without redundancy, making it easy for the agent to parse.

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 input parameters, tiers, and unlocking options thoroughly. However, it does not specify the return format or structure (e.g., JSON fields) for the output, which would be useful given the absence of an output schema. Still, it is mostly complete for a filtering tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates excellently by explaining the semantics of all five parameters: timeframe (with clamping), category, lang, session_token, and payment (including source and purpose). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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?

The description explicitly states 'Market recap' with filtering options, clearly indicating the tool's purpose of retrieving a market summary. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('market summary'), and the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_attention_shifts, get_buzz_score) makes its general recap function distinct.

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 usage context: acceptable values for timeframe, category, and lang, along with tier-based constraints (free ≤24h, connected ≤7d). It explains how to unlock the full recap via session_token or payment proof, guiding the agent on when to use each parameter. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools.

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