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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real context the annotations lack: the output is bounded to 1-5 items, is 'sanitized', and carries no execution authority.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core return behavior and followed by the safety scope. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information.

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 one-optional-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is adequate on purpose and safety. It is thin on what a snapshot actually contains and on the sole parameter, which is left entirely to a schema with no property descriptions.

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 0% for the single `limit` parameter, so the description would need to compensate. 'Return 1-5' hints at the count range but never mentions `limit`, its default of 3, or what happens when it is omitted; the schema's min/max already encode the range, so the description adds little.

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 verb and resource: 'Return ... AET opportunity research snapshots,' with useful qualifiers ('sanitized', 'PAPER-only'). It does not explain what a 'snapshot' or the 'rank' in the tool name contains, so the domain object stays somewhat opaque, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

'No live-trading or execution authority' effectively excludes an execution use case, implying this is for research/discovery only. With no siblings there is no alternative to route to, but there is no positive statement of when an agent should call this versus other data sources.

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