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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and side-effect profile is covered. The description adds signal scope and filtering behavior but says nothing about output shape, pagination, or result caps beyond the limit param. The trailing 'Pro.' hints at a subscription/auth tier but is too cryptic to count as disclosure, so a 3 is appropriate against the annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the capability and then the filter set and an example. The dangling 'Pro.' is cryptic and slightly muddies the close, but overall the structure is tight with little waste.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the screening dimensions and a representative query well. It omits any description of what a returned row contains, how sessions/signals interact, or pagination behavior, leaving real gaps given the absence of an output schema.

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 64% with 11 params, so the schema does much of the work. The description touches most filter dimensions (direction, premium, OI change, catalyst window, phase, congress, sort, limit) but adds no syntax, units, or format detail beyond the schema, and leaves session, signals and order unaddressed. Baseline 3 fits.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Screen the market') and enumerates the four signal families (options-flow net premium, OI change, FDA catalysts, congressional trading), which meaningfully distinguishes it from single-signal siblings like oi_movers or intent_flow_current. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It supplies a concrete usage scenario ('find bullish options-flow names with an FDA catalyst in the next 30 days') that tells the agent the kind of multi-signal query this tool is built for. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it lands at clear-context-without-exclusions.

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