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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful semantic note that the search is over 'historical patterns' and can serve hypothetical drawings, but says nothing about return shape, ranking, or how the sketch is normalized to the reference symbol/interval.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler and the core action front-loaded. Efficient, though the second sentence is largely a restatement of the first rather than new information.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it explains the input concept and use case but not what a returned match looks like, how results are ranked, or why a reference symbol/interval is required. The API-guide sibling may cover this, softening the 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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are documented by the schema itself, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces that queryValues represents a custom or hypothetical sketch, which is mild added meaning over the schema's own wording, but nothing about how symbol/interval act as scale references.

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 ('Search for historical patterns similar to a custom sketched price trajectory') and even names the concept (Sketch-to-Search). An agent can grasp what it does, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_candle_analogue_map or inspect_candle_analogue.

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?

Provides a use case ('when you want to find matches for a hypothetical or hand-drawn pattern'), which implies the scenario, but names no alternatives and gives no exclusions. With ten sibling candle tools, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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