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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the demo identity has no free market scope and can only query the frozen clone's market, which tells the agent to expect rejection for out-of-scope queries.

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?

A single dense sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and no filler. The em-dash clause is long but carries real information rather than 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers scope but not the return shape (what aggregates are produced), pagination, or how a scope violation manifests. There is no output schema to compensate, so those gaps remain unfilled.

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 'query' parameter is documented as 'Nombre del mercado o submercado'. The description adds no syntax, format or matching-rule details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description is a noun phrase ('Agregados del mercado/submercado DEL ACTIVO DE MUESTRA') rather than a verb+resource statement, so the action is only implied. It does convey the resource (market/submarket aggregates) and a hard scope limit, but it never names a sibling tool to distinguish itself from get_asset or get_compset.

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?

Usage is implied through the demo-identity constraint: it can only be used against the frozen clone's market/submarket. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_asset or what to do when the requested market falls outside scope, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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