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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden and does so richly: local computation provenance, the transparent EMA-alignment-qualified-by-ADX trend rule, routing/fallback behavior for the candle series, the max-4-interval constraint, and the daily-ATR clustering logic for support/resistance. This is substantial behavioral context well beyond what the single annotation provides.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and indicator inventory before the routing and S/R details, so an agent gets the gist immediately. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause conveys distinct capability information rather than filler, so the density is justified.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and combined with the schema and annotations it covers provenance, routing, constraints, and indicator coverage completely. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents symbol, intervals (with the default and enum list), and market (with the spot-preferred/perp-fallback semantics), establishing the baseline of 3. The description largely restates these, adding only the 'max 4' emphasis and the rationale for the fallback rather than new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('multi-timeframe technical-analysis snapshot for one coin'), enumerates exactly which indicators are computed (RSI, EMA/SMA, MACD, ATR, Bollinger, ADX, volume, trend rule), and explicitly distinguishes itself as computed locally from real candles rather than a vendor black box. An agent can separate it from flow_levels, market_candles, and research_trade_plan without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For levels from executed perp flow... use flow_levels' and notes ATR stop suggestions feed research_trade_plan. It also explains the market=auto fallback logic so the agent knows when spot vs perp applies. It does not enumerate when NOT to use it against the many other market_* siblings, but the named alternative covers the main ambiguity.

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