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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses origin timestamps, lag_ms, cross-venue collapse with earliest-origin retention, per-venue listing, geo_blocked typing for unreachable venues, and the non-predictive 'DATA context'. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a query-style tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, data source, urgency rationale, aggregation behavior, edge case, filters, data context, and auth. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into caveats.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers source coverage, timestamp/lag semantics, aggregation rules, geo_blocked behavior, filtering, and authentication. It does not state the response envelope or pagination, but the described fields are enough for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly in most cases.

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 only mentions 'Filter by hours, event_type or symbols' without defining hours semantics/range, symbols format, or the asset_class parameter. The enum values exist in the schema but the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving three of four parameters under-specified.

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 specific verb-resource pair: 'know WHAT an exchange announced and WHEN', and pinpoints listings, delistings, and trading-caution flags from seven venues' announcement APIs. It also separates itself from derived news articles by emphasizing that this is 'the print itself', which distinguishes it from siblings like the headlines tool.

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?

It gives a clear context for use: when the agent needs the exchange's own announcement with original timestamps rather than a news article. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or give 'when not to use' conditions, but the distinction from news content is strong enough that an agent can route correctly.

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