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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it performs three internal HTTPS reads, has no destructive side effects, never calls issuer-level tools, and preserves partial results if one internal call fails. This goes far beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints and gives the agent a solid mental model of the tool's execution.

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?

Despite being dense, every sentence carries unique information: purpose, internal call plan, parameter restrictions, behavioral guarantees, and usage cues. It is front-loaded with the primary use case, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does, when to use it, how it behaves, what parameters are allowed, and how to interpret results ('screen requiring issuer drilldown'). Given the output schema exists and annotations are rich, nothing important is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, but the description adds critical constraints: output_mode only accepts 'compact', and it explicitly forbids passing limit, offset, ticker, source_date, or issuer filters because the preset owns those arguments internally. This goes beyond schema descriptions and prevents common misuse.

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 identifies this as a read-only composite workflow tool for opportunity and alpha screening, specifying the exact universe and the internal components (readiness, alpha_opportunities, daily_changes). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the preset call plan and noting it never calls issuer-level tools, making its role in the broader toolset 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it when the user asks for alpha opportunities, opportunity sweep, clean alpha board, or names worth follow-up research.' It also tells the agent what not to pass (limit, offset, ticker, etc.) and warns that results are a screen requiring issuer drilldown, effectively steering toward follow-up tools.

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