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

Beyond the generic annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses substantive behavior: the entry price is captured at the live price or the next market open, the signal is timestamped and attested immediately, it stays open until manually closed / price_target / stop_loss / auto_close_days, and critically that no real order is placed. That is a meaningful behavioral payload the annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scoping, followed by a single dense lifecycle sentence and a short prerequisites sentence. Every sentence carries information, though the lifecycle sentence is long and the term 'attested' is unexplained jargon that adds length without clarity.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, paper-trade semantics, fill-price timing, and termination conditions, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not say what is returned (e.g., a signal identifier) or whether repeat calls create duplicate signals, which is a modest gap given idempotentHint=false.

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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, including the buy/short directionality of price_target and stop_loss and the position-size weighting. The description only re-references parameter names in the lifecycle sentence (price_target, stop_loss, auto_close_days) without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Publish a paper trade (signal) under your account') and immediately scopes it as paper-only, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_my_signals, close_signal, cancel_signal, and verify_signal. An agent can identify this as the creation tool without opening the schema.

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?

It states prerequisites explicitly ('Needs an API key and a publisher profile') and clarifies the paper-trading-only condition, which tells the agent the context in which this tool applies. It does not, however, name when to prefer an alternative (e.g., verify_signal or close_signal) or any explicit when-not condition.

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