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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it provides net direction, share of flow, and coins, which is useful context about the data returned. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination limits or data freshness, but the annotations lower the burden.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key outputs. There is zero fluff or redundancy, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 an output schema, so return values are already documented. The description states the key data points (net direction, share of flow, coins) and the scope (sectors). It is complete for an agent to decide when to call it, though it lacks explicit mention of pagination (handled by cursor) or usage conditions, which is minor given the simplicity and existing schema.

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%, with all three parameters (cursor, detail, window) having descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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's function: tracking where whale money moves between sectors, with specific outputs like net direction, share of flow, and coins. It uses a specific verb ('moving') and resource ('sectors'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like whale_activity which focus on individual whales rather than sector-level flow.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. The only implied usage is that it answers sector rotation queries, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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