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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that results are 'evidence-qualified published' signals and scoped to an IST day, which is useful beyond annotations, but says nothing about pagination, default page size, or empty-day behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no redundancy; the scope and timezone qualifier come before any detail an agent would need.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and side effects need no explanation. Still, with two undocumented parameters and no sibling routing, the definition is adequate but not complete for a tool sitting in a cluster of five signal-related siblings.

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 only 33%: date is documented, but limit and offset carry no descriptions in either schema or tool description. The description reinforces the IST timezone meaning of date, but leaves pagination entirely unexplained, which is the gap the low coverage requires it to fill.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve ... published signals') plus a clear scope ('for one IST day') and a qualifier ('evidence-qualified'). An agent can tell it returns a day's worth of signals rather than a single signal or a brief, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from get_daily_brief or search_signals.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named despite five closely related siblings (get_daily_brief, search_signals, get_signal). The agent must infer that this is the calendar-day retrieval tool while search_signals handles queries.

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