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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: unauthenticated/free accounts get a degraded payload (5 markets, analyst average only, 1 headline) and a meta field that reports what was withheld. That truncation and metadata-signaling behavior is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the payoff (all markets' research in one call) followed by the record shape, filters, paging, and the free-tier caveat; dense but every clause carries information. The trailing "Research, not financial advice" disclaimer is the only mild padding, and the long run-on sentence is harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still covers scope, record contents, filtering axes, pagination, and authentication tiers. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the filter axes (segment, category, ids, all) and cursor paging without adding syntax, precedence rules, or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — fetching one compact research record per market — and enumerates exactly what each record contains (question, rules, chance, 24h move, headlines, analyst average/gap/reasons, top-trader lean). The scope phrase "Every market's research in one call" cleanly separates it from per-market siblings like problee_get_market_research and plain listing tools such as problee_list_markets.

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?

Gives concrete selection guidance: filter by segment, category or ids, or all, then page with cursor, and it states the access-tier condition for the free preview. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer a narrower sibling (e.g., single-market research), so it is strong context rather than full routing.

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