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

With annotations already declaring the tool safe and read-only, the description adds useful behavioral context: the board is refreshed after each close, each card has its own session and as-of date, and an archive exists. This goes beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loaded. It opens with the board's core purpose, then adds useful details on data scope, freshness, and archive location without wasting words.

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 is sufficiently complete for a read-only, optional-parameter board tool. It explains what the board contains, how recent the data is, and where the archive lives. Slightly more detail about the response structure or ranking criteria would make it stronger, but it is not blocking.

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?

The input schema already has complete descriptions for both parameters, including limit range, default, and region examples. The tool description does not add much parameter-level meaning, so the schema carrying the load is fine at baseline.

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 resource as a Tech Signal Board and explains what it contains: ranked global tech signals, new highs, big moves, sector rotation, and geographic coverage. It is specific and useful, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from sibling tools such as get_ranking or get_signal_scores.

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 implies this tool is for current, curated tech signals rather than historical or raw data, and it mentions the dated archive location. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over its siblings or when not to use it.

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