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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add context, and it does: it discloses the exact return shape (per-path direction and confidence, coherence score, pass/block gate) and bounds the scope by stating the Jev review is out of band. It omits any mention of latency, x402 payment/access requirements hinted at by 'mcp-x402', or how thresholds are set.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the signal paths, then the return contents, then the scope caveat. It is dense but jargon-heavy (PRO-LO, SqueezeOS, SML Triple-Trigger, mcp-x402), which costs some readability without wasting sentences.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so adequately: paths, direction, confidence, coherence score, and gate result. Missing pieces are how to interpret the coherence score's threshold and the ambiguity around the Jev sibling, but an agent has enough 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Stock ticker symbol'). The description reinforces the singular-ticker scope ('for one ticker'), which is mildly useful for preventing multi-ticker batching, but adds no format, exchange, or case-sensitivity detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 names a specific operation (multi-path consensus for a single ticker) and enumerates the four independent signal paths it consults (trade-engine composite, SMA20/50 trend, SqueezeOS picks, SML Triple-Trigger), which is far beyond restating the name. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from coherence_jev_verdict by scoping itself to the coherent gate rather than the Jev review, though that distinction is blurred by the odd claim that Jev review 'is not run over MCP' when a Jev sibling tool exists.

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 implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for 'do my directional signals agree on ticker X', and the closing sentence rules out expecting a Jev/TypeSafe verdict. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over coherence_jev_verdict, earnings_gate_verdict, or the individual signal tools, and no prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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