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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds non-obvious behavior: the card view renders exactly what was fetched, so not passing a user-specified count as `limit` leads to over-fetching and displaying more cards than requested. This is valuable context beyond the annotations that affects invocation.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence establishes purpose, the second delivers a critical usage tip with a rationale. Every word earns its place.

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 GET-like tool with four optional, well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: when to use, what it does, and a significant edge-case instruction. No critical gaps are apparent given the available metadata.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description significantly enhances understanding of the `limit` parameter by explaining the rendering consequence, which helps the agent correctly translate user requests like 'last 5 signals' into a `limit` argument. No such addition is made for other parameters, but the coverage is already strong.

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 it returns recent public AI crypto trading signals with filters for coin, importance, and pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_signal_details by focusing on 'recent public' signals and listing specific filter dimensions.

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 opening phrase 'Use this when the user asks for recent public AI crypto trading signals' explicitly indicates when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest any alternative tools, though this is a minor gap given the clear context.

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