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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral boundaries beyond that: it is factual only, and explicitly excludes buy/sell recommendations, price targets, and IPO grey-market premium. This helps an agent avoid misusing the tool for advisory content.

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 carry the full package: what the briefing contains, when to use it, and what it deliberately does not include. Nothing is redundant, and the key content is front-loaded.

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 no parameterschers, no output schema, and strong read-only annotations, the description still enumerates the expected content categories, making the return shape predictable. No critical invocation information 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description provides no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed; it instead clarifies the scope of the returned briefing.

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 identifies a specific resource—the daily briefing for the latest NSE trading day—and enumerates the content categories it covers, such as market score, index moves, flows, breadth, movers, and announcements. The 'Use for' phrasing immediately signals the intended query, distinguishing it from more specialized sibling tools like fpi_flows.

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 explicitly says to use it for 'how did the Indian market do today', giving clear contextual guidance. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a broad daily briefing tool this is a minor omission.

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