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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: freshness windows ('today's', 'last 7 days', 'latest session'), inclusion thresholds (>=80% of MWPL, >=50% delivery, >=Rs 1 Cr traded value), and an explicit limitation ('market-wide book not available' for mtf). It omits auth/rate-limit details, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded before the option list, and the seven bullets are terse and parallel, each carrying distinct content rather than filler. The sibling-routing sentence is placed last where it belongs. Nothing reads as padding.

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 carries the return-value burden — and it does so per feed, including freshness, ranking, units (Rs crore), and caveats. Combined with annotations that fully cover the read-only safety profile, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the single enum's member names (fno_ban, slbm, mtf, deliveries) are opaque strings that the schema only lists. The description gives each one meaning, defining what fields come back and how each feed should be interpreted, which is genuine meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get one of today's market-wide data feeds') and immediately enumerates the seven feeds it can return. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from three siblings (market_valuations, market_heatmap, get_stock_deals), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Each enum value is paired with the condition that selects it and the content it yields (e.g. 'deals — bulk & block deals for the last 7 days'; 'signals — technical signals from the latest session'). It also names explicit alternatives and their use cases, e.g. 'for index PE/PB valuation history use market_valuations' and 'for a single stock's own deal history use get_stock_deals'.

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