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

The description discloses useful behavioral context beyond annotations: nothing is armed until the user opens and confirms the link, no account is needed, and the link lasts seven days. This is especially valuable because annotations mark destructiveHint=true but the description clarifies the deferred activation model, without directly contradicting the annotation.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: what the tool does, when to use it, how to choose between price and conditions, and what to return.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision between price and conditions, and gives output guidance ('Give the URL as a link and say in one line what it watches'). It doesn't enumerate all parameter combinations, but the schema covers the parameter-level details, and the deferred-activation and expiry behavior are disclosed.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the core branching logic: pass price for a price-level alert, pass conditions for anything else, and how 'when' behaves relative to current price. With 83% schema coverage, most parameter details already live in the schema, and the description's additions are targeted and useful, though it doesn't explain every optional parameter.

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 names a specific action (prepare a price or indicator alert link), a clear resource (a one-click Basis alert link), and the intended scenario (when the user wants to be told when a level breaks, RSI crosses 70, or price moves 5%). This distinguishes it from siblings like chart_link or indicator_compute by focusing on alert generation rather than chart or indicator manipulation.

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 explicitly says 'Use it whenever the person wants to be told when something happens', giving clear when-to-use context. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the examples and the 'price vs conditions' branching provide enough orientation for an agent to select it correctly.

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