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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's burden is lower. It adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: the selection gate (alive, $10k pool, not HIGH/CRITICAL), returning a count instead of a list, and the meaning of found=false.

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 main action is front-loaded and all sentences carry meaningful information about selection criteria, return shape, or found=false semantics. It is slightly wordy with rhetorical framing like 'costs people money' and 'a menu,' but remains focused.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains what the tool returns, how the canonical contract is chosen, why other contracts are only counted, and what found=false means.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and one 'symbol' parameter. The description clarifies that symbol means a ticker symbol and relates it to contract resolution, but it does not provide format, case-sensitivity, or examples. This is adequate but not richly compensating for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Names ONE Robinhood Chain contract for a ticker symbol.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing 'real ticker' and the single canonical contract among many possible deployments.

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 rather than explicit: an agent can infer this is for resolving a symbol to its canonical contract, and the gate criteria clarify what qualifies. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus the related sibling tools.

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