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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is 'deterministic,' the output is a candidate signal (not an order), and it clarifies the meaning of the signal bias field with an enum-like breakdown. It also notes the 'reason' field should be propagated. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured, using lists and em dashes to separate the key output components. The three sentences each carry useful information: what the tool returns, how to use the 'reason' field, and the non-order warning. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool, though slightly long due to the detailed bias enum.

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 no output schema, the description partially covers return values by listing alpha_score, evidence, themes, bias, Chainlink price, basis, and risk flags, plus the reason field guidance. However, it does not specify the exact return structure (e.g., list vs. object, key names), nor does it explain the 'basis' and 'risk flags' details. The missing parameter semantics further reduce completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (hours, min_alpha), and the description does not mention either parameter or explain their purpose. The description is entirely silent on how hours and min_alpha affect the output, leaving the agent with only parameter names and defaults. This is a critical gap since the schema itself provides no semantic help.

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 provides 'deterministic candidates for the narrative-trader strategy' and enumerates the key outputs (highest-alpha Reddit signal, bias, Chainlink price, basis, risk flags). It distinguishes itself from siblings like reddit_alpha_signals by focusing on the narrative-trader strategy and specifying 'per Hood ticker the highest-alpha Reddit signal.' However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with related signal tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage context: it is for the narrative-trader strategy and instructs to 'carry it into status reports and the chart as the buy/sell rationale.' It also warns that 'Signals are NOT orders,' which guides against misuse. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer reddit_alpha_signals or gap_trade_signals instead.

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