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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the payment model, trial period, and the requirement to handle 402 challenges. It does not detail rate limits or exact side effects, but the read-only nature is implied.

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 informative but somewhat dense; each sentence adds value. Could benefit from slightly better structure (e.g., separate payment info), but remains efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return type (list of stocks at top, ranked) and includes the free alternative for count. It lacks detail on output fields but is sufficient for a simple list 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional limit parameter, and the schema description is clear. The description adds context about ranking order but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it scans the Korean market snapshot, returns stocks at a top (sell) ranked most-top first, and distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_bottoms.

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?

Provides clear guidance on payment (trial, PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header), suggests the free pitch tool for count, and highlights that no symbol selection is needed (cold start).

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