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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses authentication requirements, error behavior (QUOTA_EXCEEDED with Retry-After), the conditional presence of the thesis field, and a full list of returned fields. This goes beyond minimal transparency, though it does not explicitly mention side effects or read-only status.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and uses a colon-delimited list for the return payload. It packs substantial information without excess fluff, though its length is somewhat longer than the minimum needed.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description provides a comprehensive picture: all return fields, optional field behavior, error handling, and authentication. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with no ambiguity.

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?

All parameters have complete schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: it explains that include_thesis introduces latency and controls the thesis field, and it highlights symbol and timeframe as core inputs. This extra behavioral detail justifies a 4.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Generate an AI-powered crypto trading signal') and its key constraints (given pair and timeframe). It distinguishes the tool from the sibling get_account by focusing on signal generation, and it enumerates expected return fields, making the purpose explicit.

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 the tool is for generating signals but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the usage guidance is only implied, not directly stated.

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