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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context on top: it requires an api_key obtained via register_agent (which itself needs no key), it reveals the pricing/tradability check is the same one preview_card_basket performs, and it describes what the result contains (connected stocks and cryptos with tradable flags). It does not mention rate limits or latency for the vector-model run.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability and then the workflow ordering, with no filler sentences. The leading auth parenthetical is slightly awkwardly placed ahead of the core purpose, which costs a point but not readability.

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 does the work of summarising the return: a ready-to-build basket of stocks and cryptos annotated for tradability. Auth, workflow position, and downstream tools are all covered; only operational details (pagination, limits on the model run) are absent.

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 event, api_key, max_stocks and max_cryptos are all documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'stocks AND cryptos' mirrors the two limit parameters but adds no new syntax, bounds, or format detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource (suggest assets for an Event Card basket) and describes the mechanism: runs the Tuatara Vector Model to find connected stocks AND cryptos, then flags which are tradable. It is clearly distinguishable from preview_card_basket and build_custom_event_card in the same sibling cluster.

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 an explicit ordering rule: 'Call this FIRST when building a card from a theme or link, then refine with preview_card_basket and launch with build_custom_event_card.' It names both downstream alternatives and the condition that selects each, plus the auth prerequisite.

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