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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: what is reported at every strategy step, how the vocabulary is grouped, and that items can be expressions like 'rsi14 > 50' rather than literal fields only.

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 scoping statement and the watch_set relationship are front-loaded, and the indicator/field enumeration earns its place for a discovery tool. The middle sentence is dense and parenthetical-heavy, which costs it a point but does not bury the key point.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does reasonably well: indicator groups, example field names, and expression items. It does not describe the actual response shape or ordering, which keeps it from a 5 for a discovery tool.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema correctly declares an empty object. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics work for the description to do.

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 what the tool surfaces: the trader's current watch list plus the full vocabulary of trackable fields, grouped by indicator, including field names and expression support. It is clearly distinguishable from watch_set, but it opens with a noun phrase ('What a strategy test reports...') rather than a crisp verb, so the action itself must be inferred.

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?

It names a sibling and a sequencing rule: 'Call it before watch_set, and when the trader asks what can be tracked.' That gives two concrete invocation contexts. There is no explicit when-not guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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