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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description's job is to add context — which it does: it discloses the auth requirement (X-API-Key or Authorization: Bearer), the 404-with-suggestions behavior for unknown symbols, and the low-data suppression rule ("a window with too few scored stories says so instead of giving a score"). What it does not cover is rate limits, whether historical windows beyond 30d are available, or caching, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the three time windows, then the metric list, then error and auth notes — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The dense enumeration of return fields is long but each item tells the agent something it would otherwise have to discover by calling the tool, since there is no output schema.

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 one parameter, no output schema and a read-only annotation set, the description supplies everything needed: what is returned, the sentiment scale, the suppression behavior for thin data, the failure mode for bad symbols, and the auth prerequisite. There is no material gap an agent would need to close before invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `symbol` parameter already carries ticker examples (AAPL, BTC, XAU, OIL, USDTRY, gold). The description reinforces this by enumerating accepted asset classes (stock, coin, gold, silver, crude oil, currency pair) and adds the unknown-symbol failure mode with suggestions, which is genuinely useful — but it overlaps heavily with what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (one asset's sentiment and impact) and enumerates the actual payload: story counts, high-impact counts, impact-weighted and plain mean sentiment on a -1..1 scale, tone shares, timeline, sources and top stories. An agent can immediately tell this is per-asset sentiment rather than an aggregate index or signal feed, although it never names `muhabbit_sentiment_index`, `muhabbit_sentiment_signals` or `muhabbit_ticker_summary` explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear this is the per-asset drill-down ("one asset") against siblings that appear to be aggregate or signal-oriented. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no "use this instead of X when Y" routing, and no guidance on whether to call this before or after `muhabbit_events` or `muhabbit_news`.

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