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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral context: 'Signals are decision inputs, not instructions; nothing here places an order.' It also discloses the time window ('current stats epoch') and the order ('newest first'). This gives the agent a clear mental model of side effects and data scope without contradiction.

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 sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and condition, then adds the signal content summary and the decision-input caveat. Every clause earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 compensates by detailing exactly what each signal contains ('entry, stop loss, take-profit levels, planned reward:risk and market'). It also covers ordering and time scope, leaving no significant gap that would hinder correct invocation or interpretation of results.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with descriptive text (e.g., 'Maximum rows returned', 'Only this pair', 'Only this direction'). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the resource ('currently open published signals'), the condition ('published, no outcome yet'), the order ('newest first'), and the time scope ('from the current stats epoch'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_signal_ledger and get_vetoed_signals by specifying the exact subset of signals returned, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate (open, published signals from the current epoch) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for using other tools like get_signal_ledger. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, so an agent must infer the distinction from sibling names alone.

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