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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the deliverable is a "copy-paste prompt pack with examples," but does not clarify whether the tool performs an actual stock diagnosis, returns a reusable prompt template, or requires external execution.

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 short and front-loaded, but much of the wording is generic marketing filler such as "production-ready" and "run today." It is concise without being informative.

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 diagnostic tool in a large family of stock-* and *-diag-tool siblings, the description does not explain the diagnostic dimensions, expected output, or selection criteria. The absence of annotations and output schema makes this omission more significant.

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?

There is one optional query parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains its purpose. The description adds no further meaning about how the query scopes the analysis, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but not helpful beyond it.

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 restates the tool name as a "stock diag tool system" without specifying what kind of diagnosis it performs or what resource it acts on. It adds marketing language about a "copy-paste prompt pack" but does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as stock-analyze-tool, stock-board-tool, stock-formula-tool, or stock-tpl-tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling stock tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The audience phrase "marketing and operations leaders" does not clarify selection among stock-analyze-tool, stock-board-tool, stock-formula-tool, or stock-tpl-tool.

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