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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds concrete behavioral details beyond annotations: 'it performs one HTTPS read against the Natural Language route, has no destructive side effects, and never executes trades, wallets, settlements, or writes.' It also discloses that style changes tone/density only, not facts, and that the brief preserves ranks, stress values, quality flags, nulls, source dates, and caveats.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameters, then behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral safety, and alternatives. An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, with no apparent gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 100%, and the description repeats the parameter semantics without adding new information beyond the schema. It restates limit range, offset pagination, and style options, all already documented in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 explicitly states the tool converts the Top Stressed screen into human-readable Markdown, with a specific verb ('explained') and resource ('Top Stressed screen'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling raw deltasignal_top_stressed by contrasting it as premium vs. cheap structured JSON.

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 description gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'when the user wants the Top Stressed screen explained in human-readable Markdown.' It names the alternative tool and when to use it: 'Use raw deltasignal_top_stressed for cheap structured JSON and this tool for premium human-facing summaries.' It also provides parameter usage guidance for limit and offset.

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