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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the data source (~480 aggregated data spokes) without explaining what that means. It does not state the tool's read-only nature, output structure, or any potential side effects. The term 'orphan-aggregated' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the key concept 'sector lean'. However, the phrase 'orphan-aggregated' is unusual and not self-explanatory, which slightly reduces clarity. Overall, it is concise and appropriately sized.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description carries the full burden of completeness. It does not explain what the output looks like, how to interpret the directional signal, or the meaning of 'orphan-aggregated'. An agent would have insufficient context to fully understand the tool's behavior and result.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the empty schema is sufficient. There are no parameters to explain.

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 identifies the resource as 'sector lean' and describes it as the directional signal each sector is showing, which goes beyond a tautology. However, 'orphan-aggregated' is vague jargon that obscures the tool's exact purpose, and the lack of an explicit verb makes the action less clear. It distinguishes from siblings by sector focus but only implicitly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ticker_signal. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or contexts. The only hint is the sector focus, which implies a use case but is not explicitly stated.

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