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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that it resolves handles to permanent IDs, extracts only scorable calls, uses benchmark-adjusted abnormal returns, and includes a sample-size caveat. It also clarifies it is analytics, not advice. While it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication, it covers the key behavioral aspects and preconditions.

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 paragraph that front-loads the core question, then provides process details and caveats. It is somewhat long but each sentence adds value, explaining the methodology, output, and required preconditions. No fluff, though it could be tightened.

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 complex scoring tool with an output schema, the description explains the inputs, process, prerequisites, and output structure. It covers the need for stored tweets, maturation windows, and the nature of the analytics. It doesn't describe the output fields in detail (likely in the output schema) but gives a good overview. Missing info on refresh and error handling is minor.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It clarifies that 'handle' is the analyst handle to resolve, but does not mention 'refresh' at all. The refresh boolean is left unexplained, leaving the agent to infer its purpose. This is a partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 opens with a clear, specific question ('How ACCURATE has this analyst been?') and then details the exact process: resolves handle, extracts scorable calls, evaluates against historical prices at multiple horizons, and returns a scorecard. It is a distinct analytics tool, not a generic listing, and its purpose is unambiguously differentiated from investment advice or raw data retrieval.

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 clear prerequisites: it needs stored tweet history (calls out analyst_views to populate) and matured time windows for scoring. It also warns that recent calls show as pending. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the analyst_views prerequisite effectively routes the agent to the correct sequence.

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