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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it enumerates the returned fields (id, display name, category, parameters with defaults and bounds, short usage note) and explicitly disclaims market data or computed values. That prevents a common misinvocation. Pagination/result-size behavior is not mentioned.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the return contract, then the argument notes. Every line carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 takes on the job of describing the return shape and its limits, and both optional filters are explained. For a two-parameter read-only catalog tool, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 carries the full burden and does it: it gives concrete category examples ("momentum", "trend", "volatility", "volume") that stand in for missing enums, and defines search as a case-insensitive substring matched against id and display name. This is meaning the schema cannot supply.

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?

Specific verb + resource: it lists the technical indicators the platform supports for strategy building, which is unambiguous on its face. It does not, however, contrast itself with the other list_* catalog tools (list_primitives, list_fundamental_analyzers, list_stochastic_methods), so an agent must infer the distinction from the noun 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 description frames the use case (discovering indicators for strategy building) and sets a clear boundary by stating it returns metadata only and no market data or computed values, which steers agents away from using it as a data source. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-call condition.

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