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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds some behavioral context by specifying 'high-confidence' and enumerating event types, but it does not explain how events are detected, ranked, or returned.

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 focused sentence with no filler, and the key action 'Find high-confidence market events' is front-loaded. It is concise, though it could be improved with a bit more structure around parameters and output.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter explanation, and a large set of overlapping sibling tools, the description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation. An agent would not know what results to expect or how limit/window affect the search.

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 carries the burden of explaining limit and window. It does not mention either parameter, leaving the agent to guess what 'limit' limits or what 'window' controls.

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 finds high-confidence market events and gives concrete examples such as bullish accumulation, breakouts, and capitulation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from many overlapping siblings like find_opportunities, find_strong_buying, or get_market_regime.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. No context is provided about which scenarios favor find_market_events over alternatives like find_unusual_activity or get_market_intelligence.

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