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

With annotations covering the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent), the description still adds substantial behavior: the dataset size and provenance, the matching criteria, the 1/7/30-day output windows, and the specific null-with-reason cases (stocks, quiet days, small/dominated/indistinguishable groups). This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 use-case trigger is front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence ('What historically happened after a move like this asset's current one.') repeats the first, and the methodology sentence is long enough to obscure the operative facts. Some consolidation would help.

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 must (and does) explain the return shape: median, spread, and share beating Bitcoin over three horizons versus an ordinary day, plus the null-and-reason paths. Nothing needed to interpret a response is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (symbol) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for the symbol beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description states a specific analytical operation: what historically happened after a move like this asset's current one, computed from 3,213 attention spikes. It's clearly distinct from siblings like arena, asset, or methodology. It loses a point only because the opening clause and the follow-up sentence restate the same idea rather than sharpening it.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use when someone asks what usually happens after a spike like the one an asset shows today.' It also describes failure conditions (stocks return null, quieter days return null). It does not name a sibling alternative for related questions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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