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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds rich behavioral context beyond them: the score comes from the latest complete scoring run, `null` pillars mean missing data rather than zero, `status: "insufficient_data"` means no publishable score, and governance caps/red flags may have limited the result. It also declares the deliberate absence of band and category fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scoping, then organized into a numbered reading guide that keeps dense information navigable. It is long and carries some repetition (the band-coarseness caveat appears twice) plus boilerplate disclaimers, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return contents and how to interpret them, and it does so thoroughly: pillars, weights, percentile base, confidence, coverage, governance overlays, and every degenerate case an agent might encounter.

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 schema already documents `symbol` as required plus the two aliases, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format guidance, so the baseline of 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+scope ('Get the Tapetide Score for ONE stock') and defines what the score is: a deterministic, non-LLM 0-100 composite with six pillar sub-scores, percentile, confidence, coverage and governance flags. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the multisource sibling `screen_tapetide_scores` by noting the band cutoffs live there.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('what is Tapetide's score for X', 'why is X rated Y') and an additional use case (rating input to a write-up). It also implicitly routes multi-stock lookups to `screen_tapetide_scores` by referencing it as the source of the band table.

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