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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the scoring basis ('call/put volumes, premium and net delta') and the two distinct output modes (time series vs snapshot). It does not disclose response structure or rate limits, but it is a read-only data retrieval tool, so the transparency is adequate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the purpose and scoring basis, and the second covers usage modes and filters. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Given the complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview but leaves gaps. It fails to clarify the difference between 'symbol' (singular) and 'symbols' (plural) parameters, and does not mention date range parameters for the time series. This could confuse an agent selecting parameters.

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?

The description adds meaning to key parameters: 'Pass a symbol' explains the symbol parameter's conditional behavior, and 'filterable by sector or minimum strength' ties sector and min_strength to the tool's functionality. It does not address the 'symbols' plural parameter or 'signal_only', but schema coverage is 78%, so it partially compensates.

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 tool's function: 'Bullish/bearish classification of each symbol's unusual flow with a 0-9 strength score' and specifies the inputs and outputs. It also distinguishes from siblings by contrasting 'Pass a symbol' vs 'omit it for the cross-market snapshot', making it clear when this tool is appropriate.

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 explicit invocation guidance: 'Pass a symbol for that ticker's sentiment time series; omit it for the cross-market snapshot (filterable by sector or minimum strength).' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, though the two modes are clearly described.

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