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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are 'public' signals, the 'card view renders exactly what was fetched,' and over-fetching produces more cards than requested. It does not disclose rate limits or total-count/pagination semantics, but with annotations doing safety work, this is solid added value.

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?

Two dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and then layer the limit guidance. Every clause earns its place, though the second sentence could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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?

For a read-only list tool with a full output schema and complete schema coverage, the description covers purpose, key usage trigger, and a subtle fetch-vs-render gotcha that an agent could easily get wrong. It omits strategy-name matching behavior and the 'closest names' fallback that the schema documents, so it is not exhaustive, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool well.

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%, with the schema fully documenting coin, skip, limit, strategy, and importance (including enums and my new 1-50 bound on limit). The description reinforces strategy as 'the preset that produced them, by name' and explains limit in terms of user-requested counts, which adds modest meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting; the description does not add syntax or edge-case detail beyond it.

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 (get) and resource (recent public AI crypto trading signals) and lists the filterable axes (coin, importance, strategy, pagination). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_signal_details, get_signal_stats, and get_elite_leaderboard, which cover details, statistics, and leaderboard views respectively.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks for recent public AI crypto trading signals,' anchoring a clear usage context. It also gives a concrete routing rule for counts ('last 5 signals' -> limit) that prevents an over-fetch mistake. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative for when the user wants per-signal detail or aggregate stats.

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