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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, non-destructive), the description explains the methodology: early windows define normal trading, recent windows are tested, and names specific attack patterns. It does not detail output format or edge cases, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate context.

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 two focused sentences plus a practical example, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 still conveys primary behavior and acceptable input via the example. It could be more explicit about the exact return format or threshold behavior, but it's sufficient for an agent to understand what to send and roughly what to expect.

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?

Although the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds conceptual meaning by explaining how early vs. recent windows relate to window_size/test_windows and by clarifying that data should be a numeric array (e.g., 90 days of closing prices). This goes beyond the structured schema.

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 a specific action ('Detect price manipulation') on a defined resource ('time-series data'), and lists concrete manipulation patterns (pump-and-dump, spoofing, layering), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other risk metrics. The example reinforces the exact use case.

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 signals when to use the tool (when given a price/volume history and needing manipulation detection) and specifies input requirements, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools. Context is clear, but no direct 'use instead of X' guidance.

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