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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real interpretive value the annotations cannot: it specifies the metrics returned and explicitly warns the result is a pattern to examine, not proof or an accusation — important for how an agent should phrase its findings. It does not, however, disclose input-size limits or cost/performance traits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the detection logic before the reported outputs and the interpretive caveat. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 names the return values (recycled-volume ratio, cycle count), and the 'not proof' framing is genuinely useful. It omits the input constraints (20-5000 trades) that would prevent call failures, which is the only meaningful gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 burden, yet it never names window_s or price_band_pct or explains their units, defaults, or bounds. 'Within a bounded time window' and 'nearly identical prices' gesture at the concepts but give no mapping to parameters, leaving two of three inputs semantically undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb (screen) and a specific resource (a supplied trade series), and states precisely the pattern sought: repeated volume at nearly identical prices within a bounded window. It also names the reported outputs (recycled-volume ratio, cycle count), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does without opening the schema. None of the siblings overlap in domain, so no differentiation is needed.

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 phrase 'screen a supplied trade series' implies the input context (you must already have a trade series to hand), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. The closing caveat clarifies interpretation, not invocation. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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