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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes one useful behavioral fact: the numbers are market data and follow the connected account, implying account-dependent freshness. It says nothing about the board's ordering mechanics beyond 'best to worst', pagination behavior, or how `fresh`/credit consumption interacts with results, leaving the schema to explain the tiering.

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 resource and its returned fields, then the alternate symbol mode. Every clause is relevant, though the phrase 'its price, its move on the session and where it ranks' partially restates the first sentence's field list.

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 board with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the definition covers both invocation modes and the field set an agent can expect. The remaining gaps (limit behavior, board ordering details, credit cost of `fresh`) are covered in the schema, so the description is essentially complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including ticker syntax and the empty-string case. The description adds only the single-symbol framing and visibly does not address `fresh` or `limit`. Its wording 'ONE company' also slightly narrows the schema's 'one or more ... comma separated' without contradicting 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?

Names a specific resource (the NASDAQ-100 board), a specific operation (ranked best to worst on the session) and enumerates returned fields: price, change, sector. It also names the second mode, a single-company lookup. The resource name alone distinguishes it from siblings such as get_fx_board and get_vol_board, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

Explicit conditional guidance: omit the symbol for the full ranked board, or 'Pass symbol to ask about ONE company instead, like AAPL or NVDA'. The Ramp shows concrete examples of the argument form. No guidance is given about when a different tool or different tier is warranted, so it stops short of a 5.

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