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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that all prices are in Rial, warns that intraday values read zero outside trading hours, and explains the credit model (8-credit base fee plus per-page proxy tier pricing that scales with maxItems). The trading-hours warning is truncated mid-sentence and no auth/rate-limit context is given, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and the six data types are front-loaded, which is good, but the body is a dense run-on mixing Persian domain text with auto-generated English boilerplate, and one warning is cut off ('اکتور در این حالت آخر…'). It is informative but not tightly edited.

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 7-parameter, no-required, no-output-schema scraper with no annotations, the description covers data domain, pricing, and an important data-freshness caveat, and the schema supplies per-parameter detail. The truncated caveat and absence of any mention of failure/empty-result behavior (beyond the schema's itemType=notFound note) leave small gaps.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 7 parameters (including Persian examples, enum meanings, and defaults). The description adds only a general cost implication tied to volume, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (scraping the official TSETMC service) and enumerates the six distinct data types it returns (snapshot, adjusted history, real/legal trading, orderbook, index, market watch), so an agent knows exactly what data domain this covers. Sibling differentiation exists but lives mostly in the schema description (routing Codal announcements to codal-scraper and fund NAV to fipiran-funds-scraper), not in the tool description itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated data types and the cost/pricing note, and the schema description does route two adjacent needs to other actors. However, the description never states when an agent should pick this actor over the generic run_actor/list_actors siblings, nor any prerequisite workflow beyond 'Call list_actors for the full input schema'.

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