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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: live-price execution while the market is open, a sell-at-open queue otherwise, automatic cancellation of signals lacking an entry price, irreversibility, and the error on double-close. This is a model of disclosing behavior beyond the structured hints, and it is fully consistent with them.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded and progressively finer execution details trailing behind. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

For a low-complexity single-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers execution behavior, fallback semantics, irreversibility, and the error condition. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and anticipate the outcome.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema itself points to publish_signal/list_my_signals as the id source). The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Close one of your open signals') and the description goes on to describe the exact execution semantics. However, it never names or contrasts with the closest sibling cancel_signal, so an agent must infer the boundary between closing and canceling rather than being told.

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?

Usage is implied through the precondition ('one of your open signals') and the error case for already-closed signals, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance. The market-open/closed conditions are behavioral rather than selection guidance, and the cancel_signal sibling is never referenced.

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