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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool can produce a backtest, which implies simulation rather than live trading, and mentions 'any instrument' as a scope. It does not disclose behavior like force_refresh side effects, data source dependencies, or what 'regime' means, but the annotations carry the main burden.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the main output modes. It earns its place with no filler. It could be slightly more structured by separating the modes, but it is appropriately sized.

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?

With 12 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is too thin to fully guide an agent. It does not explain how analysis_mode differs from backtest, what trade_mode controls, how selected_indicators is formatted, or what the output schema contains. The presence of an output schema helps, but the input semantics are largely unexplained.

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 12 parameters, but it only mentions 'indicators', 'regime', and 'backtest' conceptually. It does not explain key parameters like analysis_mode, trade_mode, identifier_type, selected_indicators, or history_days. The description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's names and defaults.

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 clear verb ('run') and resource ('technical analysis') and enumerates three distinct outputs: indicator lean, regime, and full backtest. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are mostly getters/listers, by signaling an analysis action. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative or contrast itself, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 when to use it: when a user wants technical analysis, indicator lean, regime, or a backtest. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_market_data or get_signals_recent. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but explicit guidance is missing.

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