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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations lack: the data window (~3 months) and the grain (daily closes per row). It does not disclose limits on how many listing_ids can be passed, pagination, or the shape of the returned series.

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?

A single short sentence with the platform restriction front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness edges into under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

With three required, fully undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a sibling that appears to return screen results, the description leaves too much unresolved for an agent to call this correctly — particularly what query_id/session_id must be and how many rows can be requested at once.

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 0% and all three parameters (session_id, query_id, listing_ids) are required but undocumented in the schema. The description only obliquely implies that listing_ids are the 'rows' of a 'saved screen result'; it never names or explains session_id or query_id, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 conveys that it returns ~3 months of daily closes (sparkline series) for rows of a saved screen result, which is more informative than the title alone. But it never states an explicit verb (returns/fetches) and never distinguishes itself from the closely related qanvo_app_result sibling, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the word 'sparklines'.

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?

'App only' is a scope/platform restriction, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to call this versus qanvo_app_result or market_query, and no prerequisites (e.g. needing a query_id from a saved screen) are spelled out.

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