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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses survival gating, non-death-spiral filter, unvalidated nature of 'coiled' block, win-rate tilt not guaranteed, flat median outcome, and non-financial-advice disclaimer. This is rich behavioral context beyond typical descriptions.

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 description is dense but every sentence contributes meaning: strategy definition, gating, exclusivity, tier outputs, and risk caveat. Slightly verbose with 'Not financial advice' but overall efficient and front-loaded with the core definition.

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 zero annotations, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining the tool's purpose, strategy, limitations, and tiered outputs. However, it completely omits parameter guidance, leaving payment/session_token usage ambiguous. Not fully complete for invocation.

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 0% and description does not mention any of the three parameters (payment, window_days, session_token). Free/premium tier mention is disconnected from the payment parameter, and window_days/session_token are completely unexplained. Description adds no value for parameters.

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?

Description clearly specifies the tool's function: finding long candidates via mean-reversion from oversold/beaten-down names with volume survival gating. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding public catalysts/listings and positioning as the only long-side edge. The verb and resource are specific.

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 strong context: states this is the long-side mean-reversion read, explains exclusions (public catalysts priced in), and differentiates free vs premium outputs. Does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it vs alternatives, but the exclusions and 'one edge' framing imply use cases.

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