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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it discloses the return fields (wave position, degree, target high/low, invalidation, confidence), the asset universe, and the per-call cost, which is useful given 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 front-loaded with the key use case and keeps to three sentences. The 'Example:' sentence largely restates the preceding return-field list, introducing minor redundancy, but overall it is efficient.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, invocation context, supported assets, return fields, and cost. It does not contrast with sibling trading-signal tools, but nothing critical is missing for calling 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?

The schema already documents the single 'asset' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds concrete valid asset symbols (BTC, SPY, TLT, Gold) and reinforces the default behavior, making the parameter more actionable.

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 states a specific use case ('technical trader needs wave counts, targets, and invalidation levels') and names the concrete assets (BTC, SPY, TLT, Gold). This clearly distinguishes it from generic benchmarking or market-data siblings.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use when a technical trader needs wave counts, targets, and invalidation levels'). It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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