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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the whole burden. It usefully discloses the payload shape and the non-obvious fact that non-actionable setups still appear with a skip reason, and "today's" bounds the time window. It says nothing about result volume, ordering mechanics, read-only safety, or auth, which are the remaining gaps for an unannotated list tool.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what is returned, what can be filtered, and how it differs from neighboring lookups. The key scoping constraint is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need no further explanation, and the two optional filters are both acknowledged. The one shortfall is setup_type, whose accepted values are neither in the schema nor the description, leaving an agent to guess valid inputs for a low-complexity tool that otherwise documents itself well.

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 0% and the schema declares no enums, but the description supplies the five concrete status values (tradeable, no_plan, in_portfolio, pending, blacklisted), which is real meaning the agent could not get from the schema. setup_type is named but left entirely unelaborated, so compensation is partial rather than complete.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("Return today's ranked stored setups") plus the shape of each row (status, trade plan, or skip reason). It also carves out a distinct role against siblings by labeling itself "the scanning answer" and warning not to fetch price bars, so an agent can separate it from get_trade_plan or get_portfolio without opening a 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?

States the use case (scanning) and one explicit when-not ("do not fetch price bars"), and enumerates the optional filter dimensions. What is missing is a named positive alternative for per-setup detail, so the agent must infer that get_trade_plan is the drill-down route.

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