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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it clarifies these are actual GO triggers rather than standing candidates, explains that null performance fields mean 'still open', and flags that direction uses 'long'/'short' vocabulary and must be read as-is. This goes well beyond a generic 'get history' statement.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, and most clauses earn their place (field semantics, sibling distinction, vocabulary warning). It is slightly repetitive in saying both 'Distinct from decker.get_signals' and 'get_signals/get_market_state cannot answer that', but overall it is efficient for the complexity.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the meaningful returned fields and their semantics (null = still open, no direction translation) and by covering when to use the tool. It does not describe the overall return structure, ordering, or limit behavior, but those are minor for a history-query tool with a well-covered schema.

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 75%, so the schema already documents symbol, since, and timeframe; the description adds no further input-parameter meaning. The direction vocabulary note relates to returned data, not to the four input parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific definition: 'ACTUAL historical GO triggers (not standing WATCH/HOLD candidates) for a symbol', and enumerates the returned content (entry/target/stop, mfe/mae, exit_reason/exit_price). It also distinguishes itself from decker.get_signals and decker.get_market_state, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool uniquely provides.

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 gives an explicit use case: "Use this to answer 'what did the engine actually trigger recently and at what price'" and states that decker.get_signals/get_market_state cannot answer that. It also contrasts historical searchability with get_signals' current-moment action_gate view, which is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance needed.

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