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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not describe the returned content, sampling behavior, or aggregation semantics, and it stays silent on cost/latency (even though the withNarrative parameter documents a ~$0.05 Sonnet call – but that is in the schema, not the description). For a no-annotation tool, the description does not carry its disclosure burden.

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 description is extremely short – one clause with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to provide essential functional information, so the brevity harms usefulness. This mirrors the 'Process' example where minimalism is a defect, not an asset.

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?

The tool has five optional parameters, no output schema, and only a read-only annotation. The description gives only a one-line gloss and does not explain what the response contains, how parameters interact (e.g., sigmaThreshold vs. topAnomalies), or when this tool is preferable to sibling tools like get_market_anomalies. For a tool with this complexity, the definition is incomplete.

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%: every parameter (topAlerts, topSectors, topAnomalies, withNarrative, sigmaThreshold) has a clear explanation in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline for this dimension is 3.

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 ('Co się dziś rusza na rynku - największe zmiany sesji', i.e., 'What's moving on the market today - biggest changes of the session') conveys a general idea of market movers but lacks a clear verb-resource structure and does not mention the underlying legs (alerts, sectors, anomalies). It also does not differentiate from siblings like get_market_anomalies or sector_pulse_pl, making purpose identification vague rather than precise.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Given the many siblings that could plausibly answer 'what's moving' (get_market_anomalies, get_daily_brief, get_wza_summary, sector_pulse_pl), the absence of any selection criteria leaves the agent to guess.

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