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

Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by disclosing that this is a one-time-per-session setup requirement, that it affects stock_data_query behavior, and that omitting it leads to failures. This is meaningful behavioral info not present in structured data.

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?

Four sentences, no fluff. The description is front-loaded with the key requirement ('REQUIRED before stock_data_query') and then explains details. Minor redundancy between the first and last sentences (both referencing stock_data_query) slightly reduces conciseness, but it remains efficient.

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 empty schema, present output schema, and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's position in the session workflow, its purpose relative to siblings, and the consequences of skipping it. The list of pattern categories adds useful scope without overloading. It lacks nothing significant for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and instead focuses on the tool's role, which is appropriate for a parameterless setup tool.

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 loads SQL query patterns that are required before stock_data_query. It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as a mandatory prerequisite in the workflow, and the verb+resource (loads patterns) is concrete.

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 when-to-use guidance: must be called once per session immediately after get_database_schema and before stock_data_query. It also states the consequence of not calling it (timeouts/wrong results) and names the follow-up sibling tool, making usage unambiguous.

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