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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that results come from a 'published calibrated record' and include sample sizes and confidence bounds — signalling statistical uncertainty rather than raw levels. It does not say what happens for an unknown symbol or whether horizons are guaranteed to be present, which keeps it at a 3.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the verb and resource, then narrowed by the qualifiers about sample sizes and confidence bounds. It is efficient, though the stacked noun phrases ('per horizon liquidation magnets and historical reach rates') take a moment to parse.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload, and it does partially — listing horizons, reach rates, sample sizes, and confidence bounds. It still leaves the core concept ('liquidation magnets') undefined and gives no guidance on interpreting or trusting the confidence bounds relative to the sibling teaser/census tools.

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%: the schema already documents 'frame' (15m | 1h | 4h | 1D, omit for all horizons) and 'symbol' with an example. The description's only parameter-relevant content is 'per horizon', which adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 has a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('per horizon liquidation magnets and historical reach rates') and even names the fields returned (sample sizes, confidence bounds, provenance from the published calibrated record). It never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as get_liquidation_census, get_magnet_levels_teaser, or get_reach_stats, so an agent cannot tell which of these overlapping 'magnet/reach' tools to pick from purpose alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. The presence of get_liquidation_census, get_magnet_levels_teaser, and get_reach_stats in the sibling list makes this omission costly — the agent has no stated rule for choosing between them.

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