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

With annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is an API-only tracker refreshed every 3 hours, describes output components (regime, sector score/label, flow trend, theme matches, live basis), and explains ticker filtering behavior. This goes well beyond annotation coverage.

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?

Despite dense content, the description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. It uses colons and em-dashes to organize output components efficiently, and every clause adds value without redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully communicates the return values: market regime, sector score/label/flow board, per-ticker join details (score, label, flow trend, theme matches, live basis). It also covers parameter behavior and data freshness, making it complete for a read-only lookup tool.

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 schema describes only the 'tickers' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explicitly explaining 'tickers: CSV filter (empty = full Hood universe)', giving complete semantic meaning for the sole parameter.

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 tool as providing sector rotation context for Hood tokenized stocks, including market regime, SPDR sector scores/flows, and per-ticker sector join. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on sector rotation and money flow, answering 'where money is rotating'.

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?

The description clearly indicates when to use this tool ('Answers where money is rotating and whether your token's sector is in inflow or outflow'), providing context for use cases. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude scenarios, stopping short of a 5.

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