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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false): it discloses mutating+authenticated nature, a 30-60 min asynchronous backend workflow, email notification on completion, a 5/hour per-user rate limit, and the initial return shape. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking an async, rate-limited mutation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the mutating/authenticated warning, then timing, rate limit, usage condition, and return. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still states the initial return ({"task_id": ..., "status": "PENDING"}) and covers the async lifecycle, rate limits, and prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single required "symbol" parameter is fully documented (including an "IMCR" example) in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource ("Request onboarding of a NOT-yet-covered ticker") and scopes it to symbols not yet covered, immediately distinguishing it from report/listing siblings like list_options and generate_report_for_stock.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition ("Use only when a symbol is missing from list_options("tickers") / returns no data elsewhere") and routes the agent to the alternative check first. This is a textbook when-to-use rule.

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