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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description correctly focuses on what they cannot express: newest-first ordering, that losing alerts are retained rather than filtered out, that status keeps updating until the 26 h window closes, and a per-call cost of EUR 0.002. The cost and pagination disclosures are genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of noting auth requirements or expected result sizes/rate limits, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Resource and ordering come first, then the payload contents, then pagination and cost, so the important information is front-loaded. The long middle sentence is dense with comma-separated fields but each item is substantive, and the short trailing sentences are tight. Slightly compressed for readability, but no 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?

With no output schema and six parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the metrics, ordering, cursor mechanism, and cost. It omits how since/until/symbol interact and what the default 50/limit behavior means, minor gaps for a read-only history endpoint whose safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 coverage is 67% and already documents type, since, until, symbol, and before_id formats. The description adds real meaning beyond that by naming the operational contract for pagination: pass before_id equal to the returned next_before_id. It does not explain how the filters combine or what limit defaults to, leaving a small gap.

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?

Names a specific resource (Waveleta signal-engine alert history) and enumerates exactly what each record carries: high/low/last versus alert price, Target 1 and invalidation touched, and 15m/1h/4h/24h best and worst moves. This is far more specific than the sibling names imply, so an agent can tell it apart from get_radar_signals or get_equity_history without opening a schema.

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 explains what the tool returns and how to page through it, which implies when to use it, but it never names an alternative or states a when-not-to-use condition. The 'past moves do not predict future ones' line is a caveat about interpretation, not routing guidance. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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