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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data source (Polygon grouped-daily aggregates) and the fact that results are fused with per-symbol GEX/Hurst/IV-surface computations. It stops short of disclosing scan cost, latency, universe size, or result 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?

It is a single sentence, but it is dense and self-referential ('engines above') rather than front-loaded with a plain statement of what the scan does. No waste in length, but the structure prioritizes technical provenance over the agent's immediate need.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the scan returns — result shape, per-symbol fields, or universe breadth — and it does not. For a tool with no required params and no output schema, an agent still cannot predict the response, which is a material gap.

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% and the single filterRegime parameter already enumerates ALL/SQUEEZE/FRACTAL/SKEW in the schema. The description adds nothing about what these regimes mean or how filtering changes results, so the 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 operation (wide-market scan) over a specific resource (the real US equity universe via Polygon grouped-daily aggregates), and explicitly contrasts it with a fixed short symbol list, which distinguishes it from symbol-pinned siblings. The phrasing 'fused with the real per-symbol GEX/Hurst/IV-surface engines above' is jargon-heavy and refers to tools not visible in the sibling list, slightly muddying the boundary.

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?

There is only an implicit contrast ('not a fixed short symbol list, no pinned symbols') and no explicit statement of when to choose this scan over analyze_narrative_divergence, track_gamma_squeeze_mechanics, or any other sibling. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no cost/latency warning despite it being a wide-universe scan.

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