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

The description discloses that the data is 'Precomputed, deterministic,' which adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also describes the structure of each break (dated call, tags, base rate), providing transparency about the output's nature. No contradiction with annotations.

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 information-dense but well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then detailing the data fields, and ending with a usage note. Each sentence adds value, and the text is not overly verbose for the amount of context it provides.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, data structure, and usage, and an output schema exists to document return values. The main gap is the lack of parameter explanations, but given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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 was expected to explain the 'limit' and 'since' parameters. It does not mention either parameter, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names and defaults alone. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the resource (thesis breaks), the scope (across every tracked company), and the nature (the live 'what just broke' feed for the event-studies page). It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings like get_event_studies.

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 gives a clear use case ('Use to show recent good/bad breaks with their odds') and frames the tool as the live feed for event studies. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives such as get_event_studies or what_changed, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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