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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains what the output includes ('2-week lean from the model's nightly calls', 'how its stocks' calls split', etc.) and mandates showing the not-advice line and run date. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 core purpose, then usage and output instructions. The first sentence is dense but each clause adds relevant detail. No filler, though it could be slightly more scannable.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, yet it usefully summarizes output content. Annotations cover safety, and the description fills in purpose, usage, and output display requirements. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single 'name' parameter with examples. The description provides similar examples ('Information Technology, semiconductors, banks') but adds no new semantics like format or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('StockMap's read') and resource ('one US sector or industry'), and details the exact content returned (2-week lean, call splits, industries, largest stocks). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on sector/industry-level analysis rather than individual stocks or crypto.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'when someone asks how a US sector or industry looks, or which of its stocks look strong or weak, whether or not they name StockMap.' It also instructs to show the not-advice line and run date. No alternatives are named, but the usage context is clear and complete.

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