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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and excels. It discloses the deterministic nature, the TF hierarchy (upper supplies target, lower supplies entry), and provides a crucial warning that grade='aligned' does not mean all timeframes are GO, explaining what 'aligned' actually means. This goes well beyond a generic read.

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 efficiently structured: a summary line, a dash-separated list of output components, a clear directive, and a warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is justified by the need to prevent misinterpretation of 'aligned'.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates all output components, explains the TF logic, and references matrix_summary[].gate for per-TF status. For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this is fully self-contained.

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 input schema covers the single symbol parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable alias examples (BTC, 비트코인, GOLD, 테슬라) and clarifies the omit-symbol behavior for all 14 universe symbols, slightly exceeding the schema's 'Optional symbol or alias'.

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 uses a specific verb ('assembly') and names the resource ('multi-timeframe optimal-path per symbol'). It enumerates the exact outputs (direction, grade, entry, stop, target, RR, switch coordinate) and explicitly calls itself 'the single judgment authority,' which sharply distinguishes it from siblings like get_signals or get_market_state.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool ('This is the single judgment authority — narrate or filter it, do not re-decide coordinates') and gives a practical usage note for omitting the symbol to get all 14 symbols. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for other contexts, so it misses the top score for explicit when-not/alternatives.

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