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

Even though annotations already include readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds concrete behavioral details: it performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, and does not write files, wallets, orders, or account state. This goes well beyond the structured hints and gives the agent a clear safety-and-side-effect profile.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return semantics, parameter guidance, behavioral guarantees, and explicit use cases. It is slightly redundant with the annotations ('read-only', 'idempotent') but each sentence still adds useful context. It is concise enough for a tool with one parameter and a clear role.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides all necessary contextual information: the single-ticker constraint, the type of data returned, the non-destructive nature, and the exact trigger phrases. There are no significant gaps in agent decision-making context.

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% and the schema already provides a detailed description and examples for 'ticker'. The description repeats those examples and adds the phrase 'public-company symbol', but it does not introduce new semantic constraints or clarify behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 the tool's action ('retrieve ... field-map contract') and resource ('SPECTRA historical field-map contract for one crypto public company ticker'), and explains the returned context ('issuer-specific filing choreography and pressure-map context'). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings by naming the specific domain artifact and the single-ticker scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it when the user asks for SPECTRA, field-map, historical pressure, filing choreography, or report-visualization context for a named issuer.' It also notes that a single ticker is required. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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