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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the enrichment contents and the presence of compound directives and machine-readable suggested actions, which tells the agent this returns pre-analyzed signals rather than raw events.

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 what the tool returns and then the selection guidance. The content enumeration is slightly list-heavy but every item earns its place by signaling available signal types.

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 to carry return structure and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to convey purpose, enrichment scope and routing. It does all three; the only omission is any note on data freshness or coverage universe, which the schema's lookback params partially imply.

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 days, limit, types, tickers and severity are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, default or interaction detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get enriched market events') and enumerates the payload (governance scores, insider conviction, dividend safety, compound directives, suggested actions). It distinguishes itself from the broader family by positioning as an aggregator, but it never names a concrete sibling (e.g. get_market_signals, get_morning_brief) that an agent might otherwise pick.

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?

'Use this instead of multiple individual lookups when you need to understand what is happening at a company' gives a clear selection condition for the aggregate-over-singular choice. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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