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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the subscription-gating constraint and the 'semantic' nature of the ranking, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as result ordering, pagination, or whether any filters are applied. This is minimal extra context beyond annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single concise phrase with no filler or redundant details. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core idea. It is appropriately sized given the availability of schema and annotation 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?

Despite having annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse to provide adequate context. It does not define what 'top stress' means, what data is being ranked, or what the output represents. This is especially problematic in a large sibling set with many stress-related tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information to select and use the tool correctly.

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?

All three parameters (limit, stress_field, signal_filter) have full descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already explains. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline 3 is warranted.

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 reads as a noun phrase, 'Subscription-gated semantic top-stress ranking,' which implies the tool returns a ranking of top stress but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list.' It does not specify what entities are ranked (issuers, signals, etc.) and does not distinguish itself from siblings such as deltasignal_top_stressed or atlas7_covenant_stress, so the purpose remains somewhat vague.

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?

The only usage hint is 'Subscription-gated,' which is an access prerequisite rather than guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The description does not provide context about when to use this tool vs. other stress-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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