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

No contradiction with annotations; the description reinforces that this is an analysis/aggregation call and adds useful execution context: free, direct call, no x402, hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes, and value-moving results must be finalized locally. It does not discuss potential side effects or staleness, but annotations already cover the destructive/read-only profile loosely.

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?

The first paragraph is front-loaded and useful, but the second paragraph duplicates the SAP MCP execution guidance that also appears in the input schema description. This repetition adds noise and prevents a higher score.

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 two-parameter aggregation tool with an output schema, the description covers what it returns, when to use it, and execution constraints. It could be slightly stronger by naming related perp tools like sap_perp_risk_check or sap_perp_trade_plan and how this score relates to them, but that is not essential.

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%, and the schema already describes mint and market clearly. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning data sources indirectly, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Aggregate' and the resource: a technical signal score for perpetuals, with explicit inputs (RSI, EMA, MACD, Bollinger, price action, funding) and outputs (score, recommendation, confidence). It also differentiates itself from individual indicator tools by saying it replaces 5-7 indicator calls with one aggregation call.

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 a clear usage context: use before opening a position to get a quantitative decision baseline, and it tells the agent this tool is the aggregation alternative to individual indicator calls. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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