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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful context beyond annotations, such as the report's content (funnel metrics, top candidate) and the availability of a full accuracy archive at a specific path. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool returns and where to find deeper data, although it does not address performance or rate limits.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first defines what the tool does and lists key metrics, the second points to the accuracy archive. No filler or redundancy.

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 single parameter, rich annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for the agent to understand what the tool returns (summary of market activity) and when to call it. It covers the essential context without needing to explain return values or parameter details.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter (window_hours) with description 'Lookback window in hours (default 24, max 48).' The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without further value.

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's purpose: 'Get a daily intelligence report summarizing liquidation market activity' with a specific list of contents (competitor count, positions, funnel metrics, top candidate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing itself as the 'morning briefing' tool, setting it apart from more granular tools like get_liquidation_waves or get_mev_feed.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'call it once per session to understand market state before executing.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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