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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that raw notional/price figures are not redistributed and mentions payment mechanisms, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only or describe rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. It adds some value but omits potentially critical behavioral details.

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 front-loaded with its core purpose, then adds payment and catalog references. It is slightly verbose but each section adds necessary operational information (payment, availability). The structure is logical, though it could be trimmed without losing critical details.

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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the output fields and behavioral constraints. However, it lacks explicit usage context versus siblings and omits any mention of response format or pagination. It is adequate but not fully complete for informed selection without additional cues.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does explain 'hours' as a lookback window with a default of 48, but it does not mention 'limit' at all. The description also fails to clarify the meaning or possible values for 'limit', leaving a gap for agents.

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 it retrieves recent institutional dark-pool prints with specific output fields (symbol, direction, strength, confidence, size_bucket). The verb 'get' and resource 'dark-pool prints' are explicit and distinct from many siblings, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the lookback parameter (hours) but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_institutional_moves or get_options_flow. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without clear context for selection.

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