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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description is free to focus on behavior. It does that well, describing the return shape: ranked symbols with supporting AND conflicting evidence grouped by source, typed risk factors, data quality, live 1h hit rate, and next calls. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, but for a read-only scan the return-content disclosure is the higher-value information and is present.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then layers on the return shape, the positioning against screeners, and the objective list. It is dense but every clause contributes; the trailing objective enumeration is borderline redundant with the schema enum.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns – and it does so thoroughly. For an 11-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the missing piece is only explicit parameter semantics and when-not guidance. An agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's mention of the objective values merely repeats the schema enum and adds no new semantics about window, include, filters, or thresholds. No parameter meaning is added beyond what structured fields already provide.

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 and resource: a goal-driven scan that returns ranked symbols with evidence, risk factors, data quality, and track record. The scope is precise and easy to tell apart from a generic screener. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with named siblings like market.snapshot, market.summary, or decision.lite, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 a clear usage rule – 'Use instead of chaining screeners' – which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus manually composing screeners. It also enumerates the valid objectives. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or naming the specific sibling tools it supersedes.

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