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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about the data source (social documents) and output semantics (entities mentioned alongside the asset), going beyond annotation defaults without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff: the first defines the data, the second states the intended use. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, and output content. Minor gaps remain (return format, asset identifier handling, pagination), but annotations fill the safety profile and the definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 indirectly defines the `asset` parameter via 'about an asset' and 'mentioned alongside it', but gives no concrete format, example, or constraints (e.g., ticker vs. name), leaving the agent to infer acceptable values.

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 (extracted) and resource (named entities from social documents about an asset), enumerates entity types (people, organisations, products, tickers), and clarifies its unique value ('find what a narrative is actually about'). This distinguishes it from sibling sentiment and post 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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool ('Use it to find what a narrative is actually about'), giving a concrete use case. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to route an agent correctly among the many siblings.

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