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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does convey the selection logic (N+ consecutive days, dominant side) and signal interpretation. However, it omits operational behavior such as default date/min_streak/limit handling, sorting, or output shape.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core result and followed by a single actionable use case. No filler.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides a strong conceptual frame but leaves gaps around default values and result granularity. It still adequately disambiguates from sibling tools like get_unusual_activity, but not enough to fully guide 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 coverage is high (67%) and already describes date, side, symbols, and min_streak defaults. The tool description reinforces the 'N+' streak concept but does not add new meaning for limit or min_volume.

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 identifies the resource as symbols with unusual options activity meeting a multi-day streak criterion and mentions the dominant side. It distinguishes from single-print tools via 'stronger signal than a single print', though it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns'.

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 gives a clear use case: 'where does money keep showing up?' and frames streaks as stronger than single prints, implying not for one-off alerts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or enumerate when-not-to-use cases.

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