See what's moving in your market

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are relevance-ranked, each signal carries an impact statement and a recommended action, and — importantly — it discloses the empty-state behavior ('if the account has no Market Pulse yet, it says so'), which is exactly the kind of precondition an agent needs.

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, front-loaded with the usage trigger before describing output. The middle sentence is long but every item in the parenthetical earns its place by defining scope. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does: ranked signals each with impact and recommended action, plus the no-Market-Pulse case. All five params are optional with no required inputs to explain. Only a brief note on pagination/truncation relative to the limit cap is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five optional parameters are already documented with ranges, defaults, and an enum. The description's prose list of signal categories loosely mirrors the signalType enum and 'relevance-ranked' hints at minRelevance, but it adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema. 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 resource (market signals) and enumerates the exact content returned: trends, buyer pain, competitor moves, regulatory and tech shifts, hiring and funding. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_competitive_positioning or get_disqualification_signals based on that content list, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the person asks what's changing in their market or their buyers' markets, or needs a reason a buyer might act now.' That is a concrete use context, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives for adjacent questions (e.g. competitive positioning vs. market movement).

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