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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: refresh cadence ('Refreshed after each close'), data provenance (mirrors closelook.net/signals/board/ with a dated archive), and the fact that each card carries its own session and as-of date.

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?

It is front-loaded with the resource name and stays to three sentences, though the first sentence is a dense, somewhat promotional run-on mixing content categories with geography. No wasted sentences, but the marketing tone slightly dilutes the informational payload.

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 describing returns, and it does so at the category level (new highs, big moves, analyst-target gaps, rotation, cooling reads) plus refresh timing and provenance. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it does not specify the response shape or how sessions differ across cards.

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%, so both parameters (limit, region) are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only loosely gestures at the region dimension ('across the US, Europe and Asia') and adds no syntax, default, or filtering nuance beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource (the Tech Signal Board) and enumerates its content: new highs, big moves, analyst-target gaps, sector rotation and cooling reads across stocks, sectors and indices. An agent can tell what the tool returns, but it never differentiates itself from closely related siblings like get_signal_scores, get_ranking or get_mag_pulse.

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 exclusions, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent is left to infer that this is the tech-focused board rather than one of the many other ranking/signal siblings.

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