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

Annotations already declare this a read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds behavioral context by specifying the conviction threshold (≥0.6), the confidence multiplier alignment rule, and the exclusion of macro/macro_pulse types. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first phrase. Additional context (confidence rule and exclusions) is provided in three brief sentences without redundancy.

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 exists and the tool is a simple read-only list operation, the description adequately covers the selection logic, exclusions, and optional filtering. It does not need to describe return values due to the output schema, and the overall behavior is clear for a 2-parameter tool.

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 description explicitly mentions the optional asset filter, adding meaning to the 'asset' parameter beyond the schema. However, the 'limit' parameter is not described, and with schema description coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 the tool returns 'Active signals whose direction AGREES with the current macro bias (conviction ≥ 0.6)', which is a specific filtering criterion distinguishing it from other signal retrieval tools like get_actionable_signals or list_signals. It also names excluded signal types, further clarifying scope.

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 provides usage context by explaining the confidence boost rule (x1.12 vs x0.88 for CONFLICTS) and explicitly excludes macro and macro_pulse signal types, helping users understand what they will and won't find. However, it does not name an alternative sibling tool for conflicting signals, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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