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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that 'Energy = item count, NOT sector returns' and describes free vs premium output differences. However, it does not mention response format, pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 tightly written in three sentences, front-loading the core purpose, then adding categorical scope, tier differences, and a definition of the key metric. No redundant words; even the 'Not financial advice' disclaimer is common boilerplate and does not detract from its efficiency.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain what the user should expect. It provides a useful conceptual model (grid categories, free/premium scope, energy meaning) but stops short of describing the actual return structure, example output, or parameter-specific behavior, leaving ambiguity for real invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains 'payment' through the free/premium distinction, but it does not explicitly state parameter values or validate the mapping. The 'session_token' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving a gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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 provides a 'narrative-energy grid' across six named categories, answering where market conversation is concentrated. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on sector-level heatmap rather than individual metrics like attention shifts or buzz score, though it lacks a direct verb like 'get'.

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?

Usage context is implied through the question 'Where is the market conversation concentrated?' and the mention of free/premium tiers, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_attention_shifts or get_market_breadth. No exclusionary or alternative suggestions are provided.

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