real_legal_flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the result (counts, per-capita, buyer power, net money flow) and that daily history is included, but says nothing about units, rate limits, or data-source behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the metric list is the payload. It is slightly dense with undefined domain jargon ('per-capita', 'buyer power'), which costs it a point.

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 only two well-documented parameters, rich annotations and no output schema, the definition is nearly adequate. The gap is that key output concepts ('buyer power', 'per-capita') are never defined or given units, which matters for an analysis tool an agent must interpret results from.

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%: 'days' is documented with default, min/max and the 0 = latest session semantics, and 'symbol' explains Persian names or insCode. The description adds no meaning beyond that beyond loosely implying the daily history corresponds to 'days', so the 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?

The description names the specific resource (real vs legal / حقیقی و حقوقی buying and selling flow) and enumerates the metrics produced: counts, per-capita, buyer power, net money flow. That is concrete enough to separate it from siblings like trade_summary or market_holder_moves, though it never explicitly names a sibling it is not.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as symbol_statistics or trade_summary. The intended use (retail vs institutional flow analysis) must be inferred entirely from the metric list.

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