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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. Against that lower bar, the description adds real value by disclosing the return contents (split and highlights) in the absence of an output schema. It says nothing about staleness, caching, or what happens when no board is selected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: purpose first, then the contents list. Every clause carries information and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description is close to complete — it tells the agent what the digest contains. It leaves minor gaps: no error/empty-state behavior or freshness indication.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'the current board' is the only implicit input context, and it is handled adequately.

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 resource (the AI-written market digest for the current board) and enumerates its contents — overview, bull/neutral/bear split, per-ticker takeaways, clustered highlights — so an agent knows what it will receive. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like mcw-get-board or mcw-get-story, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for the current board' signals the board-context prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the sibling tools. An agent must infer this is the summary view rather than the raw board view.

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