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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: roughly 1-minute data freshness and a per-call billing charge, plus the 'not a trading signal' caveat. It does not mention pagination or result caps beyond the schema's limit.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then enumeration logic, then caveats and cost. Every clause carries information; only the window range restatement is mildly redundant with the 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (mention count, number of institutions/KOLs, first/last mention time, heat_chg_1d/3d, heat_z20) and the sort order. Together with freshness and billing notes, an agent has enough to call and interpret results correctly.

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%, with enum values and defaults fully documented for limit, market, window, and min_score. The description restates the window range and the min_score filter intent but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: count how often each stock across the whole market is mentioned within a time window, plus ranking fields. It is clearly a market-wide stock leaderboard, distinct in scope from the concept-level or single-stock siblings, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives clear context for when it applies (see what is being talked about most, optionally restricted to high-scoring institutions/KOLs via min_score) and an interpretive caveat that heat_chg/heat_z are pure statistics, not trading signals. It does not say when to prefer an alternative sibling such as get_weighted_hot_stocks or get_accelerating_hot_stocks.

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