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

Annotations already mark this readOnly and idempotent, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context beyond them: the calculation is deterministic, 304 supplies no market data (you must pass your own candles), the result contains the published method/values/timestamp, and it is not investment advice.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then mode definitions, then the params format, then the return/disclaimer note. Dense but every sentence carries information; no redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described in depth, and the description still sketches the result. It covers the deterministic/privacy framing, the enum, and a params example, leaving only per-calculation parameter detail as a gap.

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 carries the full burden. It maps the 'calculation' enum to concrete meanings and shows a 'params' example with the candle object shape (time/open/high/low/close/volume), plus a pointer to /llms.txt. But it only illustrates one of the three calculations' bodies and does not specify the params each mode requires, leaving gaps for a schema with open nested objects.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calcul déterministe sur VOS bougies') and enumerates the exact three calculation modes (ichimoku-rvol, regime, position-size), each glossed. An agent can distinguish this computational tool from the sibling 'ask'/'feedback' tools immediately.

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 explains what each calculation mode produces (Ichimoku confirmed by relative volume; ADX trend/ATR volatility/direction; position size for a fixed risk), which gives clear context for choosing a mode. However it never states when to prefer this tool over the 'ask' sibling, so no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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