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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description confirms the score's composition and range, which is useful context, but says nothing about data freshness, result ordering, or what the score means at its extremes.

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 tight sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and range, then the use case. The dangling 'Pro.' is the only wasted token.

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 single-optional-param read tool with no output schema, most of what an agent needs is present, but absence of return-shape detail and the opaque 'Pro.' qualifier (a gating requirement?) leaves a small gap.

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%, and the single max_display param is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: a per-ticker directional score for the current session, with an explicit -1 to +1 scale and the inputs it combines. It's distinguishable from siblings like market_tide or sector_tide, though the terse 'Pro.' tag adds no clarity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('rank names by bullish or bearish options positioning'), giving a concrete use case. It doesn't name a competing alternative (e.g. intent_flow_current or abnormal_trades_current), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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