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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that this is free and that certain fields (entry/stop/target) are redacted, which are key behavioral traits. It does not cover rate limits or authentication, but for a simple preview tool, the disclosed limitations are sufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded with the key selling point 'FREE taste'. It packs the essential information (endpoint, what is included, what is redacted, and the purpose) into a compact two-sentence structure with no wasted words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose and limitations. It mentions the cost of the paid alternative and the redaction behavior, which covers the core decision-making needs. It could have explicitly mentioned using call_paid_endpoint for the full version, but that is inferable from the context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The schema is empty and the description does not claim any inputs, which is consistent and non-confusing. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 as a free preview of the paid /api/trade-idea endpoint and specifies exactly what is returned: strategy name and direction, with entry/stop/target redacted. This distinguishes it from sibling preview tools by naming the underlying endpoint and detailing its limited scope.

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 phrase 'Evaluate before paying' explicitly signals the tool's purpose as a pre-purchase evaluation aid, implying it should be used before calling the paid endpoint. It does not explicitly name alternatives like call_paid_endpoint, but the context of being a 'FREE taste' makes the usage context clear.

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