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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context about the returned fields and cursor pagination, including that nextCursor is absent on the last page.

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 concise and mostly front-loaded, with pagination instructions clearly separated. Minor redundancy exists between the schema's cursor description and the description's cursor explanation.

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 the output schema, rich annotations, and full parameter coverage, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. The main remaining gap is explicit comparison with sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already carry the main semantics. The description adds some context around dashboards and pagination but does not add much beyond the 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 identifies the resource as GMM chart indicators and specifies what each result contains. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling listing/search tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: list indicators, optionally filtered by dashboard, with pagination instructions. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as list_tracker_series or search_articles.

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