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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context with 'Educational, never predictive' and clarifies the aggregation method ('moving averages align'). It does not describe pagination or rate limits, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence provides value. The description is concise and well-structured.

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 read-only browse tool with rich annotations and detailed schema descriptions for most parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention limit defaults or pagination, but the current description covers the core functionality and use case.

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 67%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by sector, asset type, or mood label, which maps to the parameters but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. No additional parameter meaning is explained.

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's purpose: 'Browse Market Mood across instruments' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_mood_for_ticker (specific ticker) and get_today_mood_changes (changes) by focusing on browsing across instruments.

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 provides clear context: it is for browsing overall market mood with filters by sector, asset type, or mood label. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or name alternatives, but the scope is evident and sufficient for a browsing tool.

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