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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the EUR 0.002 per-call cost, which affects how freely an agent should invoke it. However, it says nothing about data freshness or refresh cadence, which matters for a 'current' radar signal list.

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 sentences with no padding, and the most important information (what it returns) is front-loaded. The cost note is efficiently stated. Only minor weakness is the fragmentary first sentence, which reads more like a label than an explanation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining what is returned, yet it never describes the shape of a 'signal candidate' (ticker, direction, score, timestamp). For a paid tool with no output schema, an agent cannot predict what it will receive, which is a significant gap.

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 the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never mentions it. The schema JSON itself carries the type, default of 20, and 1–200 bounds, so an agent can still use it correctly, but the description contributes nothing about paging, maximum retrieval, or how limit interacts with ranking.

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 names the resource ('Current Waveleta Radar ranked signal candidates'), which tells an agent this returns ranked candidate signals rather than raw data. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, and 'signal candidates' is undefined jargon that doesn't distinguish it from siblings like get_alert_history or get_equity_history. Directionally clear, but not a precise statement of what the tool does.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. 'Informational only, not advice' is a legal disclaimer, not a usage instruction. An agent knows what the tool returns but not the conditions under which it should call it versus another sibling.

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