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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real operational context beyond them: content is automated and disclosed as such, deterministic, newest-first, and only live Mon–Fri. It also specifies the card anatomy (headline, excerpt, body), which the annotations do not.

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 followed by two short ones; the resource and its scope are front-loaded with no filler. It is slightly run-on, packing card types and schedule into one clause chain, but nothing is wasted.

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 compensates by describing the return shape (headline, excerpt, body), the ordering, and the update cadence, and defaults live in the schema. The only real gap is the absence of routing guidance against similar feed siblings.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping domain language onto the coded parameters — session wraps to B1, macro/recap to B2, earnings/PEAD to C, outliers to D, and Asia/Europe/US/after-hours to the window values — making the enums interpretable in context.

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?

States a specific resource (timestamped market cards) with an explicit content inventory — session wraps, macro prints, earnings reactions, outliers, PEAD signals, weekly recaps — and ordering (newest first). It does not, however, name or contrast any sibling such as get_wire or get_latest_view, which look like adjacent feed tools.

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 says what the surface contains and that it runs Mon–Fri live, but never states when to reach for it over alternatives like get_wire or get_latest_view, nor any exclusions. Usage is left entirely to inference from the content list.

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