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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that results are ordered newest first, but it does not discuss pagination or return shape; that is acceptable here because the schema describes pagination in detail.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element, the action, resource, and sort order, 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 low-complexity, read-only list tool with rich schema descriptions and complete annotations, this is nearly complete: the ordering behavior is stated and the schema carries pagination semantics. A small gap remains around tenant scoping implied by 'your', but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so both limit and cursor are already fully documented in the schema, including the unusual legacy bare-array behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List your market_signal rows') and adds the ordering ('newest first'), so an agent can tell it is the collection-listing sibling of market_signal_read/create/update. It does not explicitly name those siblings, which keeps it from 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?

It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus market_signal_read, market_signal_create, or the other market_signal operations. The listing intent is implied by 'List', but there are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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