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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses output structure (free vs premium, catalyst types, dated-unlock flag), quantitative details (count, top 3 tickers), and risk warnings (liquidity, borrow, squeeze, not financial advice). It does not mention rate limits, auth, or exact response format, but provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 a single, front-loaded paragraph with a clear topic sentence. It packs useful details efficiently, though it includes a 'not financial advice' disclaimer that adds length. Overall, it is concise and well-structured for the information conveyed.

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?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description must cover return details and usage context. It explains free vs premium outputs and catalyst types, but omits parameter effects (window_days, payment, session_token) and does not fully describe the response format. This leaves the description incomplete for a tool with three parameters and no structured output schema.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions free vs premium, hinting at 'payment' role, but does not explain 'window_days' (default 30) or 'session_token'. The description fails to specify how these parameters affect the output or behavior, leaving a significant gap in parameter semantics.

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 tool identifies 'Short candidates — coins with a BEARISH catalyst', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it captures 'the real short signal, which the momentum-based setups miss', contrasting with find_setups and find_longs.

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?

The description implies when to use: when seeking short opportunities based on fundamental catalysts rather than momentum. It contrasts with momentum-based setups and mentions free vs premium access, giving context on tiers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the sibling names and contrast are sufficient.

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