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 safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail: the 'available' field states whether the asset is held. This is useful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose what 'social signal' means, how it's computed, or what the response structure looks like. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the 'available' field note is a meaningful addition. It's concise and readable, though it could add a bit more parameter context without becoming bloated.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden. It explains the basic purpose and one field ('available'), but it doesn't clarify what 'social signal' includes, how to interpret the response, or how the two parameters behave. For a tool with 2 params and no output schema, this is incomplete. An agent would likely need to guess at the response format and parameter semantics.

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 for the two parameters (symbol and days). The description mentions 'per-asset' which maps to symbol, and 'over time' which maps to days, but it doesn't explain the expected format of symbol (e.g., ticker vs. name) or the meaning/range of days. The 'available' field is mentioned but not tied to any parameter. This is a clear gap given zero schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Per-asset social signal over time.' This clearly indicates the tool returns social signal data for a single asset over a time range. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_social_posts or get_sentiment_trends, but the 'per-asset' and 'over time' phrasing gives enough specificity to distinguish it from broader social tools.

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 usage context: it's for retrieving social signal for one asset over time. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_social_posts, get_sentiment_trends, or get_social_dominance. The 'available' field note hints at a use case (checking if the asset is held), but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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