get_market_signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data scope are covered. The description usefully adds that signals are relevance-ranked and each carries a buyer impact and recommended action, but says nothing about freshness, source coverage, or rate limits beyond the read-only profile.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns and its enrichment, the second covers usage. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 reasonably compensates by enumerating returned signal categories and noting each has buyer impact and a recommended action. All five parameters are documented in the schema. The main gap is the absence of any sibling routing or exclusions.

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% with all five parameters documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description echoes the signal categories and relevance ranking, which loosely maps to signalType and minRelevance, but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema.

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 verb (surfaces) and resource (relevance-ranked industry signals) with the exact content types returned — trends, buyer pain, competitor moves, regulatory/tech shifts, hiring and funding. An agent knows precisely what comes back, though it does not name a sibling tool to distinguish itself from the surrounding get_* context tools.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'for deal/market context before a screen, or to time GTM moves.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g. vs get_competitive_positioning or get_pre_brief), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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