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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is free, recomputed daily, based on a 4-of-5 phase verdict, and explicitly not a direction signal. This is substantial behavioral disclosure for a parameterless informational tool.

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 not overly long, and the core subject is near the front. However, it opens with a one-word sentence and then a fragment ('Which ... carry range information:') rather than a clear declarative statement, making the structure harder to parse. The dense technical detail is relevant but could be better organized.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool reports: a walk-forward record of bands, averaging over five anchor phases, a consensus verdict, and daily recomputation. It does not specify the exact output shape, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and call it without arguments.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. Schema description coverage is trivially 100%, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies the resource: symbol/timeframe configurations carrying range information for the /candles default preset. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the tool name and content make the purpose reasonably clear. The closing 'Not a direction signal' helps distinguish it from direction-oriented tools.

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 'Which symbol/timeframe configurations carry range information' implies when to use it, and 'Not a direction signal' gives a useful when-not. However, no sibling alternative is named, and there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the other candle-related tools.

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