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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about what is returned (win rates, a confluence score), but says nothing about latency, coverage limits, or how patterns are sourced.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and packs the key output details without filler. Efficient, though the clause-after-colon structure makes it slightly harder to scan than a split sentence would.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and returns adequately, but it leaves the interval enum and symbol format unexplained. Given 0% schema description coverage, this gap matters.

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, and it doesn't. It vaguely maps 'market' to symbol and 'timeframe' to interval, but gives no format guidance for symbol and never explains the interval enum values or the default.

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 (runs) and resource (OwlChart's pattern engine) plus the inputs (market, timeframe) and the output content (candlestick/chart patterns, historical win rates, confluence score). It is clearly distinguishable from data-fetching siblings like get_price_history or get_orderbook_depth, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. The agent must infer that this is for pattern detection rather than raw price retrieval, but the description offers nothing about prerequisites or competing tools.

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