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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, closed-world). The description usefully adds a response size bound (<=4 KB) and offset pagination, but does not explain what happens when results exceed 4 KB, whether truncation is silent, or what 'p' and 'book' actually contain.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded, with no wasted sentences; the size cap and pagination constraint arrive in order of importance. The telegraphic phrasing costs some readability but every clause carries information.

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 9-parameter, no-output-schema tool with zero schema coverage, the description covers only a fraction of what an agent needs. Missing are parameter meanings, default behavior, and how the 4 KB limit interacts with offset paging.

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 description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters. The description only gestures at sort keys and offset, leaving q, days, venue, entity, format, decided, and call_state completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Every open market, a row each with p and the book.' An agent knows this returns per-market price and order-book rows, which is more specific than the title alone. It stops short of 5 because the verb is implicit in 'screen' and no sibling is named for contrast.

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?

There is a hint of usage in 'filter, sort vol|date|p', which tells the agent sorting is possible, but no statement of when to choose this over siblings like quotes, search, or upcoming. With 13 sibling tools and no exclusions, the agent must guess.

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