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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context such as the $0.05 cost, 'RESEARCH SIGNAL, NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE' disclaimer, and optional weights input. However, it lacks details on error handling, data sources, or access requirements, and does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes essential operational details (weights format, cost, disclaimer) without unnecessary fluff. The list of included metrics is slightly dense but still organized.

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 output schema likely covers return values, and the description lists the key components, providing a reasonable overview. However, the missing cik documentation and lack of guidance on when to use this tool relative to sibling tools create gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 must compensate. It explains the optional 'weights' parameter with a concrete JSON example, but completely omits the required 'cik' parameter, leaving its meaning and format undocumented. This is a significant gap for the primary input.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Composite factor scorecard' and enumerates the specific factors (quality, value, insider conviction, institutional positioning, short sentiment) and outputs (0-100 scores, composite, coverage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual signals.

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 implies use for aggregate scoring through the term 'composite factor scorecard' but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like insider_activity or short_pressure. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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