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

Annotations already declare readOnly, closed-world, and idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the data is refreshed by a nightly run and results are ordered largest companies first, plus an example of the change format. It does not describe pagination or the full return 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the definition of the resource and scope, then appends the ordering rule. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, refresh cadence, ordering, and an example of the value being surfaced. The main gap is that the 'five questions' are never enumerated or cross-referenced.

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% for the single limit parameter, but the type/default/min/max bounds are self-explanatory. The description's 'largest companies first' hints at ordering but does not explain what limit truncates, so it neither compensates for nor contradicts the schema.

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 resource (stocks) and a precise condition (answer to one of the five questions changed in the latest nightly run), with a concrete example of the change shape. It is distinguishable from get_stock_answers (current answers) but never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the nightly-run framing: use this to surface recently changed answers rather than current ones. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to get_stock_answers as the alternative for unchanged/current answers.

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