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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'Read-only public research data', 'No account access, no order placement or fund transfers', and 'Not investment advice'. These disclosures go beyond the boolean hints and give the agent concrete behavioral boundaries.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the exclusion for search_news and then safety disclaimers. Every clause earns its place, and the description avoids redundancy with the annotations.

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?

For a read-only tool with a complete output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description covers everything an agent needs to know: what it does, when to use it, alternatives, and behavioral constraints. The presence of an output schema means return format details are already structured, so nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the 8 parameters is well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it does reinforce the query parameter's distinction from search_news indirectly. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter meaning.

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 states the specific resource (venue-published exchange notices) and lists the types (listings, delistings, maintenance). It explicitly differentiates from search_news, naming the alternative for media rumors or general headlines. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools without ambiguity.

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: for venue-published notices, and when not to use it (for media rumors/general crypto headlines, use search_news). Also clarifies the tool's read-only nature and that it cannot place orders or transfer funds, which is essential decision-making context for an agent.

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