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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral context: the index composition, keyless EDGAR access, output fields (score, trend, confidence, top_drivers, methodology_version, freshness), and daily update frequency. It does not contradict annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool computes and returns.

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 exceptionally efficient: two sentences pack the return value, methodology, output fields, usage triggers, alternative sibling, and update cadence. Every clause adds value with no fluff or repetition, and the most critical information (what it returns) is front-loaded.

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 well by enumerating expected output fields and providing rich context about the index's meaning, update schedule, and keyless access. It also gives concrete use cases and a sibling pointer, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema covers the only parameter (days) with 100% description coverage, including the Gold-tier history limitation. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, which is acceptable since the schema already fully explains semantics. Baseline 3 applies as the description does not need to repeat schema information.

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 uses a specific actionable verb ('Returns') and precisely identifies the resource: a 0-100 US insider-trading activity index with detailed methodology components (Form 4 pace vs 28-day baseline, Form 144 pipeline, Form 3 new insiders). It clearly differentiates from sibling ADW-555 for 8-K disclosure pace, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicitly states when to call this tool ('Call when the user asks about insider buying/selling waves, Form 4 velocity, or insider sentiment') and also provides timing contexts (offerings, buybacks, exposure shifts). It names an alternative tool ('8-K disclosure pace is ADW-555'), giving clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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