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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'rank', which could imply a read-only operation, but it does not state whether there are side effects, what data is consumed, whether it modifies stored evidence, or any other operational constraints. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Rank economic opportunities') and its data source ('current structured evidence'). There is no fluff or repetition, and every word contributes to the intent.

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?

Despite being a simple tool with no parameters, the description lacks any expression of output behavior or relationship to sibling tools. Because there is no output schema, the agent needs some indication of what 'ranked' returns (list, scores, order) and when to call this over the siblings; neither is provided. The sentence is too sparse to be fully actionable in a wider context.

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 tool has zero parameters, which meets the baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not introduce fake parameter details, and the schema already declares an empty object, so nothing needs compensation.

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 the verb 'rank' and the resource 'economic opportunities', and adds the source 'current structured evidence', making the core purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools, but the phrasing implies a prioritization task distinct from a live scan or margin index.

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 guidance is given for when to choose this tool over the siblings 'live_market_scan' and 'voice_margin_index'. The phrase 'from current structured evidence' hints at a prerequisite, but it is not expanded into a clear when-to-use statement, alternatives are not named, and no exclusions are described.

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