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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: ordering of results (newest first, oldest first), multi-resolution bar capability, and the raw/intraday nature of the data. It does not disclose return formats or pagination, but the view list provides substantial transparency about what the agent will receive.

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, well-structured sentence with a front-loaded purpose and a compact list of views. Every phrase earns its place—no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with multiple modes.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, all views, ordering, and even notes the live chart feed use case. The schema provides parameter details, and the description adequately complements it, though it does not mention potential errors or rate limits, which would be nice but not essential.

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 baseline is 3. The main description adds significant value by explaining each view's semantics (e.g., 'recent' = recent stock trades newest first, 'summary' = totals, 'blocks' = large trades), which the schema's enum-like description does not detail. This helps the agent correctly choose and parameterize the view.

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 as 'Raw intraday stock trade-flow for one symbol,' which is specific and distinguishes it from option flow or summary tools. It also enumerates distinct views, making the scope concrete and differentiating it from sibling tools like get_stock_summary or get_option_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 implies usage by listing views and their intended purposes (e.g., 'bars' for live chart feeds), but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. There is no direct guidance on choosing get_stock_flow over get_flow_summary or get_stock_quote, so usage context is only partially conveyed.

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