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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotation fact: the $0.1/call cost and the fact that it collapses ~6 calls into one. It stops short of stating auth needs, rate limits, or latency characteristics.

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?

Front-loaded with the core claim, but the payload list is a comma-choked run-on and the 'replaces ~6 calls' claim is stated twice, once mid-list and again in the final sentence. Trimming the duplication would make it materially tighter without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return contents, and it does so comprehensively (pressure/drivers, headlines, filings, exposure map, Polymarket odds, 7d catalysts, venue status/tradable_now). It also discloses cost, which is the other thing an agent needs before invoking a premium call.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description only echoes the 24h scope and the single-asset constraint already implied by asset_id; it adds no format or edge-case semantics beyond that.

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 verb and resource ('One-call briefing for ONE asset') and then enumerates exactly what the briefing contains (net pressure, headlines w/ sentiment, SEC filings, exposure map, Polymarket odds, catalysts, venue status). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming events_since and impact_for as the many-asset alternative.

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?

Explicit cadence guidance ('ideal once per asset per session or pre-open') and an explicit routing rule: use this for everything about ONE asset, use events_since + impact_for for many assets. Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use alternative are named.

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