context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description enriches this by specifying the exact data returned for each target shape (e.g., ticker metadata, sector, market cap). It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise (two sentences plus a bullet list) and front-loaded with purpose. Every line adds value; no wasted words. The bullet structure aids scannability.

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 moderately complex input (four shapes) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed: input variants, their meanings, and sample values. No gaps remain for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the single parameter 'target', listing only a default and title. The description fully compensates by exhaustively documenting the four allowed shapes with their meanings, providing critical semantic context 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?

The description clearly states 'Situational data about a target' and lists four specific shapes for different contexts (market, symbol, anchor, system). This verb+resource formulation distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze' or 'search'.

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?

The description implies usage based on the need for situational data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'symbol_intelligence' or 'search'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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