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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is free, optional, multi-phase, and returns structured JSON with a next list. It also warns that the sample phase only serves BTC-USD for free and that other symbols route to paid evaluate_symbol. It does not describe every response detail, but the core behavior is clear.

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 dense but scannable: it front-loads the 'FREE and OPTIONAL' nature and alternatives in the first sentence, then compresses the phase flow into a compact arrow chain. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no filler.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers entry, phases, exit, alternatives, and the shape of the return value. The main gap is that it does not describe the full JSON contents of each phase response, but the `next` list is enough for an agent to continue the funnel correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds actionable context: it explains the default entry phase, the overall phase progression, and the BTC-USD-only limitation on the sample symbol. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions and helps an agent pick the right parameter values.

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 states a specific purpose: a FREE, optional agent-to-agent intro and subscription funnel. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying you can skip it and call evaluate_symbol / scan_bottoms / scan_tops directly, and by laying out the phase walk from hello to subscribe.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: call with no args or phase:'hello' to start, follow the listed phases, set interest:false to exit, or bypass the tool entirely for direct analysis via siblings. This clearly tells an agent when to use pitch and when to prefer alternatives.

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