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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: licensing implications ('no vendor license attaches to a derived series'), a dependency on a price provider, and the return envelope type. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the licensing note is a relevant extra that earns its place. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: no guidance on how to set start/end/limit, what entity refers to, or how length affects the calculation. The dependency on a price provider is mentioned but not explained. With 6 parameters and zero schema coverage, more detail is needed for an agent to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'indicator' parameter (SMA | EMA | RSI) and mentions 'underlying bars' which loosely relates to 'length', but it does not explain 'entity', 'start', 'end', 'limit', or 'length' semantics. The compensation is minimal for a 6-parameter tool.

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's action (computes technical indicator series) and its resource (prices). It names the supported indicators (SMA, EMA, RSI) and the return type ('technical_indicator' envelopes). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_prices (raw prices) and get_trading_signals (signals), even without explicit naming.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires a price provider') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_prices or get_trading_signals. The context implies it is for derived indicators, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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