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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds behavioral insight about NASDAQ closed-market gaps and the 'live basis join' enrichment, which goes beyond static annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and key output fields. The additional risk warning and tickers instruction earn their place, though the sentence structure is slightly dense.

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 the main output fields and risk context, making it useful for selecting the tool, but it leaves the days_ahead parameter undocumented and does not describe the return container (e.g., list vs single object). Given no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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?

The description explains the tickers parameter ('CSV filter (empty = full Hood universe)') but says nothing about days_ahead, which defaults to 30. This is a significant gap given 0% schema description coverage.

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 that the tool provides earnings risk for Hood tokenized stocks, listing specific output fields like implied_move_pct and beat_probability. It is distinguishable from sibling tools via the 'weekly earnings radar' and 'live basis join' terminology. However, it omits an explicit action verb (e.g., 'get' or 'list'), making it slightly less direct than ideal.

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?

It gives a concrete use case—'watch small days_to_earnings for off-hours risk management'—and explains the tickers CSV filter behavior. It does not mention any sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, relying instead on context.

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