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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond annotations: the ET timezone definition, newest-first ordering, the Bullish/Bearish split, and the important caveat that it is publication day rather than forecast horizon. This is useful, though it does not address edge cases like empty-day results.

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 three tight sentences with no wasted words. The core message is front-loaded, and each additional clause adds meaningful precision without redundancy.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential contextual details: temporal scope, timezone, ordering, output grouping, neutral-view placement, and the publication-day caveat. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing further clarification.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no burden on the description to explain parameter behavior. The description's temporal context (US session day, ET) still helps calibrate what 'latest' means, but no parameter-level documentation is needed.

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 identifies the resource as today's placed views (US session day, ET) and specifies ordering and the Bullish/Bearish split. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool like get_view or get_catchup, but the temporal scope makes the purpose reasonably distinct.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to call this tool: it returns today's placed views, newest first, and clarifies that 'today' is the US session day in ET. It does not state explicit exclusions or alternate-tool recommendations, so it falls just short of full usage routing guidance.

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