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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Educational, never predictive' and 'Snapshots refresh on a daily cycle and can lag the latest close by one session.' No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then a key caveat. No redundant wording; every clause carries meaning.

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 simple read-only tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage caveat, and an alternative tool. It doesn't describe output format or Market Mood values, but that is not essential given the annotations and simplicity.

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%, including detailed descriptions for both ticker and ma_type (with default and when ignored). The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it measures how a stock or ETF's price aligns with moving averages and produces a Market Mood. It distinguishes from sibling get_close_history by explicitly recommending it for fresher prices, and 'stock or ETF' implicitly separates it from get_crypto_price_alignment.

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?

Provides a clear alternative: 'use get_close_history for the freshest price.' It implies the tool is for alignment/mood analysis and not for real-time prices. However, it does not explicitly name get_crypto_price_alignment for crypto instruments, though the 'stock or ETF' wording makes this evident.

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