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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about signal components and signal types, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. This is acceptable given annotation coverage, but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. However, the inline parameter details (signal_type, tickers) could be structured with clearer formatting for faster parsing, but it remains concise.

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?

This is a read-only signal retrieval tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description provides a good overview and parameter format hints, but lacks information about output shape, default behavior, or threshold semantics for min_alpha. It is functional but not fully complete.

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 carries the burden for parameter understanding. It explains signal_type values and tickers comma-separated format, but omits any explanation of limit or min_alpha, leaving two of four parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Ticker alpha signals extracted from Reddit', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling signal tools by naming the source (Reddit) and specific signal components (novelty, mention velocity, cross-sub spread).

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 use for retrieving Reddit-based alpha signals but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like narrative_trade_signals or reddit_market_regime. There is no exclusion or comparison to sibling tools, leaving usage context inferred.

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