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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results are limited to instruments with at least one live story, freshness is time-bounded, and it carries an 'Information only — never investment advice' disclaimer. It does not discuss result volume or pagination, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences: scope, routing to the sibling tool, and the disclaimer. The scope statement is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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, so return-value detail is not required here, and the description covers scope, country, freshness and safety posture. The only thin spot is that the temporal window parameter is only implied by 'right now' rather than tied to the hours argument, which the schema handles but the description could reinforce.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema — including the enum values and the hours lookback with its 48h cap and purge rationale. The description mirrors the country constraint and implies recency ('right now') but adds no syntax or behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Names the exact resource set (listed companies, commodities, indices, currency, central-bank policy rates) and the precise filter (at least one FocusPulse story right now, one country) plus the payload (story count per instrument). This is clearly distinguishable from get_instrument_stories and search_stories without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the use case — 'see what is covered before asking for an instrument's stories' — and names the follow-up sibling get_instrument_stories. The when-to-use condition is stated rather than left to inference.

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