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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping detail ('for one stock') and the alias relationship, which is modest added value beyond what annotations provide. No return format or pagination behavior is described.

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?

Two short sentences plus a compact example, with the alias relationship and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a thin alias tool, though it could be marginally tighter.

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 simple read-only alias with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is adequate: it says what it returns and what it wraps. It is thin on the relationship to get_stock_events (e.g. whether to call this or the parent) and on return contents, leaving a small completeness 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%, documenting limit, symbol, ticker, and identifier aliases, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The example {"symbol":"ITC"} reinforces the primary identifier but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

It states a precise identity ('Alias for get_stock_events with type:"corporate_actions"') plus the concrete resource set (dividends, splits, bonuses, AGMs) for a single stock. This differentiates it from the generic get_stock_events sibling by naming the filter it applies. It stops short of a 5 because it defines itself only relative to another tool rather than standing alone.

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 alias mapping implicitly tells the agent this equals get_stock_events filtered to corporate actions, which is useful routing context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over calling get_stock_events directly, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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