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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: free tier returns count + top 3 tickers, premium returns the ranked list plus an UNVALIDATED 'coiled' block, window_days is accepted but ignored, and the win-rate/median-flat disclaimer sets expectations. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the strategy well, but is a dense run-on packed with parenthetical asides, a disclaimer pile, and tier/marketing detail that crowds out the operational guidance. It earns much of its length but could be tightened.

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 3-param tool with no annotations or output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape (free vs premium contents) and the ignored parameter. It omits session_token/auth expectations, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, and the description explains window_days (it does not change the list) and implies payment via the free/premium tiers. However, session_token is entirely unexplained, so compensation for the coverage gap is only partial.

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 (find long candidates) qualified by a named strategy: MEAN-REVERSION oversold/beaten-down names that have not bounced, volume-gated. It implicitly and clearly distinguishes itself from find_shorts/find_setups by tying the read to a particular setup type.

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?

Gives clear context for use (the 'one edge read long-side') and explicitly excludes a neighboring case (public catalysts/listings, because they are priced in). It does not name a specific sibling to use instead of, but the selection condition is well implied.

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