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

Annotations already establish a safe read (readOnlyHint true, destructive false, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are restricted to graded books, ordered newest first, and an unknown ticker yields an empty list rather than an error. It stops short of explaining truncation behavior when the 120-row default limit is hit, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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?

Three short sentences that are front-loaded with scope and ordering, then usage routing, then the edge case. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 needn't be specified, yet the description still summarizes the returned columns, and it covers filtering, ordering, alternatives, and the empty-result case. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by documenting the ticker edge case (unknown ticker returns an empty list), which the schema does not state. The limit parameter's truncation semantics remain schema-only, but nothing is left undocumented overall.

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+resource (get one stock's rows) plus scope (graded books only, newest first) and enumerates the returned fields (forecast, rank, pick side, outcome per book). It is immediately distinguishable from get_resolved_batch (whole book) and explain_resolved_prediction (single row evidence).

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use this to follow one ticker across books', then names both alternatives with the condition that selects each — explain_resolved_prediction for per-row evidence, get_resolved_batch for a whole book. No inference required.

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