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

The annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the look-back window concept, but it does not explain default behavior, timezone handling, or output limits, which are the natural next-level behavioral details.

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 very short and front-loaded with the key domain and window concept. It is appropriately concise, but the noun-phrase structure and the omission of limit details keep it from being fully effective.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource and the primary parameter. However, it lacks an explicit verb, omits limit, and gives no usage context relative to similarly named siblings.

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 must compensate for parameter documentation. It clarifies that days_back is the look-back window, but it says nothing about the limit parameter, leaving its semantics and interaction with days_back unexplained.

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 names the resource ('alt-asset trade signals') and the look-back window, which distinguishes it from broader siblings like get_market_data or get_recent_results. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, relying on the title to imply the retrieval action.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_market_data or get_recent_results. The description states only what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer when it is the appropriate choice.

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