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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds the selection criterion 'strong sell-side trade pressure' but does not disclose how strength is measured, whether results are ranked, or how the scan behaves across different windows.

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 compact sentence with the operative verb and scope front-loaded. It contains no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail, making it appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 scanning tool with no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. An agent cannot predict the return format, ranking convention, or how window and maxBuyPressure combine to define 'strong sell-side pressure,' so correct usage relies on assumptions.

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% and the description never mentions limit, window, or maxBuyPressure. Although parameter names and defaults hint at a lookback window and a buy-pressure threshold, the actual semantics—especially what maxBuyPressure means in relation to 'strong sell-side pressure'—are entirely unspecified.

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 states a specific verb ('find'), a clear resource ('symbols'), and a concrete filter ('strong sell-side trade pressure'). The phrase 'sell-side' also differentiates it from the sibling find_strong_buying, so an agent can distinguish the tool without inspecting the schema.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as find_strong_buying, find_unusual_activity, or find_opportunities. The intended use case is only implied by the name and one-line description, leaving tool selection mostly to inference.

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