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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely new behavioral content beyond them: the return values (recycled-volume ratio and cycles) and, importantly, an interpretive caveat that a detected pattern does not prove wash trading — a meaningful limit on what the output means.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and free of padding: the first defines the computation, the second defines the output and its interpretive limit. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 does well to name the returned metrics, but the shape and meaning of 'cycles' is left undefined and nothing is said about behavior when the input is below the minimum or how confidence should be read. Adequate but with clear gaps for a statistical screening tool.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does. It maps conceptually onto the three parameters (trade series, declared time window, nearly equal prices) but never states units for ts_s or window_s, what price_band_pct actually measures as a percentage, or the practical consequence of the 20–5000 trade limits on the input array.

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 gives a specific verb (screen) plus the resource (a supplied trade series) and the detection logic (repeated volume at nearly equal prices within a declared time window). No sibling tool covers trade surveillance, and an agent can tell exactly what the tool computes without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool takes a trade series and screens it, so the when-to-use context is inferable. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to any alternative analysis, so a 3 rather than a 4.

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