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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: results include sample size and confidence interval, and low-n sentiment is unreliable with concrete error rates. This goes well beyond the structured metadata, though it does not describe output shape or edge cases.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and the critical reliability warning earns its place. There is no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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 explains the core purpose, key output elements (sample size, confidence interval), and a critical interpretation caveat. It is slightly incomplete on asset identifier format and exact response shape, but sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only repeats 'for an asset' without explaining the accepted format, identifier type, or constraints. An agent gets no more semantic detail than the parameter name 'asset' already provides.

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 states a specific resource and scope: 'sentiment over time for an asset' with sample size and confidence interval. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like analyze_sentiment or get_aspect_sentiment, but the 'over time' qualifier and mention of sample size/CI imply a distinct trend-focused purpose.

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 provides strong interpretive guidance ('Read n before quoting a direction') but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. The phrase 'sentiment over time' implies trend use, but there are no exclusions or references to sibling tools such as analyze_sentiment for point-in-time sentiment.

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