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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's safety burden is low. It adds non-obvious context: refresh cadence (~4 hours), pro-tier availability, and the fact that the all-sectors call serves as the rotation view. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is well-structured with a concise summary followed by parameter bullets and context bullets. It is longer than minimal, but each sentence adds useful information such as refresh cadence, access tier, and parameter constraints. The 'not financial advice' disclaimer is boilerplate but not distracting.

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?

Given the output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and the description explains both call modes plus parameter restrictions, the tool is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance for when to choose this tool over related siblings like get_market_assessment or get_signals.

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 schema already documents all three parameters and their defaults. The description's bullets recap this information (history_count 0-3, default 0; sort_by_strength ignored for single sector) without substantially extending schema semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get Sector Intelligence') and enumerates the concrete outputs: signal, cycle stage, rotation signal, drivers, alerts, and computed statistics. It also explains the dual all-sectors/rotation view, which distinguishes it from the sibling market and earnings tools.

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 clearly states when to pass a sector name versus when to omit it, and explains that the all-sectors call doubles as the rotation view. It provides usage guidance for sort_by_strength and history_count, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with named siblings.

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