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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is disclosed. However, the description adds no behavioral detail such as how results are sorted, what threshold means operationally, or what the response looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward screener.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no mention of ranking or result format, the one-line description is insufficient for confident invocation. An agent can tell what the tool finds, but not enough about how to control or interpret the scan.

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 limit, window, and minBuyPressure have no descriptions. The phrase 'strong buy-side trade pressure' only hints at minBuyPressure; limit and window are left entirely to the agent's inference from names and defaults.

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 uses the verb 'find' with a specific resource ('symbols with strong buy-side trade pressure'), and the phrase 'buy-side' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling find_strong_selling. It is clear and immediately actionable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like find_strong_selling, find_unusual_activity, or find_opportunities. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and general context.

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