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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds a small behavioral cue with 'short-term' and 'strongest', implying a ranked list of high-momentum symbols, but does not disclose details like score calculation or filtering rules.

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?

One sentence with no filler; front-loads the core purpose. This is an appropriate size for a simple list tool.

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?

The description plus schema and annotations give a basic picture, but it lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance. With no output schema, the description could be more explicit about ranking order or default behavior, though defaults are in the schema.

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 does not mention `limit` or `window`. An agent gets no help understanding that `window` controls the lookback period (1m/5m/15m) or that `limit` caps the result count, which are essential for correct use.

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 action ('Find') and resource ('symbols with the strongest short-term momentum score'), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_top_activity or find_strong_buying; the term 'momentum score' provides some implicit differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling screening tools, nor does it mention the `window` parameter for selecting a timeframe. There is no 'use this when...' or 'for X use ...'.

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