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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral context: it explicitly warns that signal status is distinct from exchange status and that a signal does not create a Commitment or authorize execution. It also discloses the key returned attributes (canonical URLs, revision, revision hash, status), which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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 concise, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place: scope, safety, return contents, and the important status-semantics caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema is present.

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?

For a list tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope, return keys, and a critical semantic warning about signal vs exchange status. It relies somewhat on the HTTP API reference for exact filter behavior, but the schema already documents all parameters, so an agent has enough context to call the tool 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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only a general statement that the same filters and pagination as the HTTP API are supported, which does not deepen the meaning of any specific parameter beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the exact resource ('domain-published Exchange Signals'), and enumerates the signal types. It clearly differentiates this listing operation from the sibling get/discover/preflight tools, especially because it emphasizes the list scope and the returned fields.

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 implies the tool is for listing signals and notes that it supports filters and pagination, but it does not explicitly contrast alternatives such as exchange_get_signal for a single signal. The usage context is present but no when-not-to-use or sibling routing guidance is provided.

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