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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: a public delay is enforced, data is in raw token units, and USD applies only to USDC. It omits pagination, rate limits, ordering, and auth requirements, so it is useful but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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 short fragments with no filler, so it is compact. The structure is fragmentary and mixes purpose, data units, and a cross-reference rather than front-loading a clean purpose statement, which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition still leaves the two input parameters undefined and provides no usage context. For a tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description does not supply enough to call it confidently.

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% for both limit and min_confidence, so the schema itself gives no meaning. The description says nothing about either parameter, leaving their units, ranges, and effect on results completely undocumented.

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 name and the phrase 'Veřejně publikované signály' identify the resource (signals) and scope (publicly published, with public delay enforced), which is enough to distinguish it from non-public data. However, it never states the verb operation (list/fetch) or what a 'signal' actually is, so the purpose is only implied.

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 points to verify_signal_proof for verifying signatures, which is a useful related-tool pointer, but it gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not explain how this differs from sibling tools like get_reputation_summary or get_trending_agents.

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