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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that results are 'keyset-paginated by ticker,' which informs the agent about iteration mechanics. It does not contradict annotations, and the read-only nature is already declared. No additional traits like rate limits are mentioned, but annotations lower the 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 a single, dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential operational details (coverage and pagination) in an efficient manner.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, output schema present, read-only annotation), the description provides sufficient information: what it screens, across what universe, and how pagination works. The output schema covers return values, and the annotation covers safety, making the description complete for an agent to invoke 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the pagination mechanism ('keyset-paginated by ticker'), which adds semantic meaning to the 'cursor' parameter beyond the schema's generic 'opaque cursor' description. This provides useful context for how the limit and cursor interact.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a 'Dilution screener over all covered tickers' with a specific verb ('screener'), resource scope ('all covered tickers'), and pagination method ('keyset-paginated by ticker'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snacs_dilution_get, which presumably target individual tickers.

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 context is implied through the phrase 'over all covered tickers,' suggesting it is for screening across the entire universe rather than querying a single ticker. However, no explicit alternatives are named, nor is there direct guidance on when to prefer this over snacs_dilution_get or snacs_dilution_asof_get.

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