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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is low, yet the description adds real context beyond them: Week-0 levels default to 100 until scored, peer feeds may be 'stub_until_licensed' (data-quality caveat), Attic Beyond requires an API key (auth need), and an anti-hallucination instruction ('Do not invent index levels'). It does not describe return format or pagination, keeping it from a 5.

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?

It is appropriately short and front-loads the core purpose, but it reads as a series of telegraphic fragments ('Peer feeds may be stub_until_licensed', 'Attic Beyond: needs an API key') that are cryptic without surrounding context. Every sentence carries content, but the structure is choppy rather than cleanly ordered.

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 carries some return burden; it conveys that the output is composite 'levels' with Week-0=100 semantics and stub caveats, which is enough to set expectations. It stops short of describing the actual response shape, but for a read-only index lookup with clear data caveats it is largely complete.

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%, so the schema already documents the market slugs, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by stating the behavior when the parameter is omitted ('Omit market for the full package'), clarifying the optional parameter's default scope.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Attic Market Strength composites') and enumerates the four covered markets (rare coins, sports cards, collector cars, fine art). It draws a boundary against a related-but-different concept ('the Price Indexes pillar of the weekly report'), though it doesn't name the sibling tool it is not (e.g. attic_get_market_report) directly. An agent can largely tell what this returns.

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 one clear invocation rule ('Omit market for the full package') and an auth note ('Attic Beyond: needs an API key'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-(attic_get_market_report/attic_list_markets) guidance, so alternatives must be inferred from the closing boundary statement. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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