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 real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the analytical basis of the checks and, notably, that the output includes 'what was not checked' — an unusually transparent statement about tool limitations that an agent needs when judging confidence in the verdict.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, and the body is a tight enumeration followed by a compact return-value sentence. The parenthetical aside about lookahead_on without offset is dense but earns its place as a concrete rule example; nothing is gratuitous.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return shape (verdict, findings with line and rule, and unchecked areas). Combined with the check taxonomy, an agent knows what it gets back. The only gap is the absence of guidance on interpreting or acting on the verdict relative to pine_lint.

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% and there is a single required 'source' parameter already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') plus resource ('TradingView Pine Script v5/v6') and enumerates the exact class of defect targeted: future data, unconfirmed HTF values, past-bar signals, realtime-only state, fill/cost assumptions, and alerts on unconfirmed bars. This scope is distinct enough from the sibling pine_lint (style/static linting) that an agent can disambiguate on the description alone.

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 domain is clear — this is a backtest-fidelity/realism audit — but the description never explicitly states when to reach for it instead of pine_lint, nor any prerequisites (e.g. source must be complete/compilable). Usage is implied by the enumerated check list rather than stated.

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