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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only / idempotent,' notes that DTR > 7 days are rejected upstream, and identifies returned fields. It could add error/edge-case behavior, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives usage conditions, exclusions, safety behavior, parameter range, and output fields. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or 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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, when not to use, idempotency, limit bounds, and row contents. Nothing needed for correct selection or invocation is missing.

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 does by documenting the valid range for `limit` (1–20), which the schema omits. It could more explicitly say limit means maximum number of returned rows, but the meaning is clear from context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return ≤7-day DTR US venue candidates with positive velocity score.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by excluding SEC 8-K M&A teasers and long-dated Fed/macro lockups.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'Call for short-dated equity / temperature / weekly index binaries from the Spark signals bus.' It also gives explicit when-not-to-call exclusions for long-dated lockups and SEC 8-K teasers, which maps directly to likely sibling alternatives.

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