Get stage-adjusted signals

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the two return fields (originalQScore and adjusted) and what the adjustment is based on (stage/regime). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, offering value on top of the structured data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return values and usage guidance. No filler, every sentence earns its place. The tool name and title are not repeated unnecessarily.

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 (one param, no output schema), the description conveys the core return fields and usage context. It lacks details about error handling or edge cases, but the annotations provide the safety profile, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema has zero description for the ticker parameter, and the description only says 'for a ticker' without explaining the expected format or scope. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description carries the burden but fails to significantly compensate beyond what the parameter name already implies.

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 the tool returns both the raw Q-Score and a stage/regime-adjusted variant for a ticker. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool stoquant_get_qscore by explicitly pointing to it for a full breakdown, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this when you want the score adjusted for the stock's lifecycle stage and current market regime rather than the raw composite.' It also names an alternative for the full breakdown, which is a clear when-not-to-use signal.

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