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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the OWNER-only permission requirement, authentication methods, a notable non-effect (never triggers trades), and format hints for symbols/sources. It doesn't describe other side effects, but the key behaviors are covered.

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, each carrying distinct information: purpose, kind values, format rules, and behavioral/authentication context. No filler, though it could have been slightly more organized with explicit parameter bullet points. Still concise and readable.

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 an 8-parameter tool with required fields, the description gives authentication, permission, and data-usage context, but leaves several parameters (e.g., mission, confidence, event_date) undefined, relying on schema naming. Output schema exists, so return values are likely self-explanatory, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 compensate. It provides enums for 'kind' and comma-separation rules for 'symbols' and 'sources', which helps, but it leaves title, body, mission, confidence, and event_date without any semantic hints beyond their names. Partial compensation only.

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 states a clear action ('submit') and a specific resource ('structured research finding into News Guru's SharedBrain'), and it enumerates the valid kinds. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools, which are all read-only 'get' operations.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when submitting a research finding to SharedBrain, and it warns that findings do not trigger trades. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but given the tool's uniqueness among siblings, the context is sufficient.

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