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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond listing indicators, such as performance implications of computing many indicators or data availability constraints. With annotations present, this is a minimum acceptable score.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and lists indicators efficiently. It is concise without redundancy, though the list of indicators is long but necessary for clarity.

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?

Given the output schema exists (though not shown), the description needn't explain return values. Complexity is moderate with 13 indicators. The description is complete enough: it covers the essential inputs (symbol and timeframe) and the indicator list, making it suitable for agent selection and invocation.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for each (symbol, interval, indicators). The description lists all indicator names but does not add detail like default periods or how to specify multiple indicators beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'compute' and the resource 'technical indicators' for crypto futures, enumerating all supported indicators. It distinguishes from siblings like get_candles (raw data) and get_price (simple price), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 for computing indicators on a symbol and timeframe, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so it's adequate but not fully explicit.

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