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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond these annotations by explaining that the tool returns field schemas and band values, and that it serves as a prerequisite validation step. It does not contradict annotations and discloses no side effects, which is appropriate.

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 only two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage examples and tool relationships. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is highly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and how it fits into the broader workflow with other tools, leaving no critical gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents the input (none). Per rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and none are missing.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Get the schema of all available fields and their valid band values.' This distinctly identifies the tool as a metadata/schema retrieval operation, differentiating it from sibling data-fetching tools like get_summary and get_search.

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 provides explicit usage guidance with concrete example queries ('what fields are available?', 'what bands does momentum_rsi_zone have?') and states it should be used to validate names before calling get_summary or get_search. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not list exclusions, it strongly implies the tool is for schema validation and discovery.

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