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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world). The description adds useful return-content context — cash market flows, F&O positioning, aggregates, streaks — which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about data freshness, granularity defaults, or latency.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the alias relationship and then the data scope. No filler or restatement 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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates what comes back. Only minor gaps remain around default vs. explicit chart_interval behavior and data recency.

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 optional chart_interval parameter is fully documented with an enum in the schema. The description mentions neither the parameter nor its default behavior, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — 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 verb+resource ('Get detailed FII/DII institutional flow data') and explicitly declares itself an alias of the sibling get_fii_dii_detail, so an agent immediately knows it is interchangeable with that tool rather than a distinct capability.

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 declaration gives clear context for when to invoke it (whenever FII/DII flow data is needed) and pre-empts confusion with the identically-behaving sibling. It offers no exclusions or conditions, but none are really applicable for a pure alias.

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