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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — that the tool is deprecated — but says nothing about how filters combine, result ordering, pagination behavior, or any deprecation timeline. The deprecation note is valuable but the behavioral picture remains thin.

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 deprecation warning so an agent sees the most decision-relevant information first. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description needn't explain return values. Given the tool is deprecated, the description supplies the essentials, though the name/behavior mismatch (tickers vs. events) is never reconciled.

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%, with both filters and limit documented in the schema itself (AND-joining, max 20, limit 1..200, column names from search_filters). The description contributes no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 says it "Lists historical events matching the filters," which is a specific verb and resource, but it does not match the tool name screen_tickers — the name implies screening tickers while the text describes listing events. It does route the reader to screen_events, which helps disambiguate, but the name/purpose mismatch leaves an agent uncertain what the tool actually returns.

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 declares the tool deprecated and names screen_events as the replacement, which is clear when-not-to-use guidance. It stops short of saying whether the tool still functions correctly or under what circumstances (if any) an agent might legitimately fall back to it.

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