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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that there is no threshold, that results are ranked by count and % of basket, that an 80%+ concentration triggers a specific label, and it enumerates the return structure (per-direction ranks, per-symbol trigger/target/reclaim, as-of time, quotable text line). It stops short of describing error conditions or side effects, but for an analysis tool the disclosure is substantial.

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 sentence is front-loaded and functional, but the description then repeats itself: the 'Docs:' quote ('A simultaneous break is multiple correlated assets breaking 2 in the same direction') largely restates the opening sentence, and the notation is dense enough to require parsing. It is not bloated, but some redundancy and jargon make it less crisp.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would need to explain the return value — and it does, listing the ranked structure and per-symbol fields. For a tool with a nested basket parameter and five inputs, the description plus schema together give an agent enough to call it correctly, though it omits failure modes and any explicit relationship to sibling tools.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the basket format and strict_setup_bar semantics. The description adds only marginal meaning (e.g., 'no threshold'), and the dense bar-pattern notation (2d-2u, etc.) is not tied back to any parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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: 'find which symbols in a basket broke their setup bar in the same direction in the same bar'. That tells an agent exactly what the tool does. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with sim_setups or find_signals, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 the tool is for simultaneous-break detection but gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. Concrete usage examples (sector ETF + holdings on W, SPY/QQQ/DIA/IWM on 30 or 60) live only in the schema, not the description, so the agent must infer routing.

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