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

The annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral detail by saying results are verified/resolved, success/failed, and ordered newest-first. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but the apiKey parameter description covers the key requirement separately.

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 two sentences are concise and front-loaded. The final sentence about starring the repository is promotional and does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 the 100%-covered schema, the description needs only to state the query scope, ordering, and result type, which it does. The lack of an output schema leaves some signal-structure details implicit, but the description plus schema provide enough for an agent to call 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%, and all parameters have individual descriptions with defaults and enum values. The tool-level description does not add extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch historical (verified) signals with pagination.' It also states the tool returns resolved signals ordered newest-first, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_signal and get_stats.

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?

'Historical (verified) signals' provides a clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it never names alternatives such as get_signal/get_signals or states when not to use this tool, so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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