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

Annotations already mark read-only and open-world; the description adds that data is facts-only, the review is a verdict not a buy/sell call, and that the governance gate is the same as live capital. It also mentions the call is 'governed' and priced below sum, adding useful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences packed with information about the bundle composition, conditional review, and pricing. The long first sentence is somewhat dense but every clause adds value; no filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema and doesn't describe return format, but the component list gives a clear idea. Given annotations cover safety, and the description explains purpose, conditional behavior, and pricing, it's fairly complete for an agent to decide to invoke.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new parameter semantics. The mention of 'artifact' as proposed trade/plan echoes the schema, providing no additional insight.

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 clearly states the tool returns a bundle of four market-intelligence components in one call, distinguishing it from separate sibling calls. The verb 'returns' and resource 'markets-intelligence group' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

It frames the bundle as an alternative to four separate calls and notes the pricing advantage, providing clear context for when to choose it. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions like 'if you only need signals, use signals instead,' so it falls short of a 5.

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