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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be non-destructive. The description adds that it detects moves and reports captures/misses, which is useful but not rich. It doesn't explain what 'clean directional moves' means or how the strategy's captures are determined, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. The structure is acceptable but leaves out important context.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description is far too brief. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'directional move', how captures/misses are measured, what output format to expect, or any operational details. An agent would need significant additional information to call this tool correctly and interpret results.

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 description coverage is only 29%, with most parameters (symbol, timeframe, startDate, endDate, source, maxMoves, atrLength, windowBars, minAtrMultiples, cooldownBars) lacking descriptions. The tool description provides no parameter-level guidance, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. The few described parameters (inputs, caseStudyId, researchRunId, mcpIdempotencyKey) are handled by the schema, but the majority remain ambiguous.

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 states the action: detect clean directional moves in the bar series and report which moves the strategy captured or missed. It uses a specific verb (detect, report) and identifies the resource (bar series, strategy moves). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling analyze_* tools, though the unique focus on market coverage is implicit.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where this analysis is appropriate or exclusions. An agent would have to infer its usage from the name and context.

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