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

The description adds the behavioral disclosure that the result 'carries provenance,' which is beyond what the annotations provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It also reinforces the read-only nature, though that duplicates the annotation. Given annotations already cover the main safety profile, the extra provenance note earns a solid score.

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 three concise sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, the usage guidance follows immediately, and the provenance note is appended without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 bundle tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns (the listed components), when to use it, and a behavioral note about provenance. It doesn't describe the return format or error conditions, but these are not critical for a read-only, idempotent bundle. Minor gaps exist, but overall it's sufficient.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'feed' with its enum and description. The description does not mention the parameter at all, adding no extra meaning. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool is a unified read-only bundle that aggregates market consensus, pulse, live signals, funding extremes, and the live alert queue. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the narrower alternatives. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly advises 'Prefer the narrower tools when you need one part,' which provides clear guidance on when not to use this bundle and implies using it when multiple analytics are needed. It names the category of alternatives ('narrower tools') but doesn't list them individually, so it's slightly less explicit than it could be.

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