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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned metrics and describing the empty-state behavior, though it does not discuss permissions, limits, or response shape beyond the field list.

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 front-loaded with the core resource and return contents, followed by a compact empty-state instruction. It uses two sentences with no redundant or wasted wording.

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?

Given one optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains what data is returned and what happens when the user follows no stocks.

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 100%, so the single optional parameter 'opinions' is already fully documented in the schema. The description mentions latest opinions as part of the output but does not add meaning about the parameter's count, default, or bounds beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource as the stocks the user follows on Opinion Alpha and explains the weekly summary contents. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as stock_overview or latest_opinions, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to understand its purpose.

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 is implied by the reference to the user's home page following list and the empty-state guidance, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like latest_opinions or stock_opinions. The agent can infer the use case but is given no exclusion or alternative routing guidance.

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