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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: '$0 cost (pure regex/heuristic)' discloses the method and cost profile, 'POST endpoint — requires draft_text in body' clarifies transport, and 'Uses NZXplorer historical NZX language and sentiment data' identifies the data source driving the analysis.

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 scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact feature enumeration. The middle run-on of capabilities is dense and partially redundant (superlatives vs corporate buzzwords; sentiment vs media pickup), but nearly every clause carries actionable information about what the tool returns.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with its thorough enumeration of analysis dimensions and explicit method/cost/source disclosure, the definition is complete enough for an agent to select and call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents ticker and draft_text including format and length limits. The description only restates that draft_text is required in the body, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 per the coverage rule.

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 (Analyse) and resource (draft NZX announcement) with the pre-publication scope clearly delineated. The enumerated scan categories (FMA compliance risk, defamation, superlatives, forward-looking statements, buried risks) make it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like analyse_narrative_risk or get_disclosure_language, which operate on already-published content.

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 implies usage via 'before publication' and 'useful for IR teams, company secretaries, and communications professionals', giving an audience and timing context. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer that this is for drafts rather than existing announcements.

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