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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: a 50-item cap, newest-first ordering, how Reddit threads nest replies with commentCount, what threadOnly means, that telegram broker notes do not feed the score, and that excerpts are opinions not advice. These are real behavioral traits an agent could not get from the structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core return shape comes first, then edge-case semantics (threadOnly, telegram) follow. Most sentences carry information, though the broker-note caveat is a minor tangent relative to the primary purpose.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so thoroughly: fields per mention (sentiment, excerpt, source, author track record), ordering, thread structure, and the threadOnly edge case. An agent has everything needed to interpret results correctly.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description's note that month 'scopes results to one calendar month' largely restates the schema's own YYYY-MM description rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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 ('returns the individual posts and filings behind a company's score') and implicitly differentiates from the get_company_score sibling by positioning itself as the underlying detail rather than the score. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so an agent must infer the routing from the phrase 'behind a company's score'.

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 implies usage ('behind a company's score') and explains the month scoping, but never states when to pick this over get_top_signals, get_company_recaps or get_company_score. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, leaving routing to inference.

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