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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely non-schema behavior: an instruction to summarize the steps performed when presenting results, plus the fact that overlay defaults to patterns. It says nothing about cost, latency, or data scope beyond the 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?

Three short telegraphic fragments with zero padding, and the capability statement is front-loaded ahead of the presentational instruction and the routing note. The fragment style is efficient but slightly clipped, sacrificing readability of the core action for brevity.

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 full annotation coverage, a complete schema, and an output schema covering return values, the description does not need to explain results and correctly avoids doing so. What remains thin is guidance on overlay/timeframe/lookback selection, which the schema handles by declaring defaults, so the overall definition is adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the defaults and accepted timeframes. The description's only added parameter information is restating 'Default overlay=patterns,' which is already in 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?

The description names the concrete analytical capabilities (chart patterns, support/resistance, Fibonacci, indicators), which tells an agent exactly what this tool produces and distinguishes it from the CRUD/order-management siblings. It never states the verb explicitly (the title 'Analyze' carries that), and the telegraphic fragment style means the agent infers the action rather than reading it.

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 gives one explicit routing rule to an alternative: 'Use get_market_data for quotes,' which cleanly separates this analytical tool from the raw-quote sibling. However, it offers no guidance on when to pick this over other analysis-flavored siblings or when it is inappropriate, so the condition for use is only partially covered.

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