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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context about the prerequisite call order and invocation timing before SQL writing, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites and triggers. Minor redundancy ('entry/exit' appears twice) prevents a perfect score, but every sentence earns its place.

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 parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, prerequisites, trigger conditions, and combinability. It is complete for this tool's role.

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 schema coverage is complete. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 directly states it loads a 'technical workflow' for specific indicators (RSI, MACD, SMA, Bollinger Bands, entry/exit), making the verb and resource clear. It distinguishes from sibling workflow tools like fundamental or earnings by listing technical analysis indicators and signal types.

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?

It explicitly gives ordering prerequisites ('REQUIRES get_database_schema then get_query_patterns to be called first') and when to invoke ('Call BEFORE writing SQL when the user asks about...') with a comprehensive trigger list. It also notes combinability with other workflow tools, effectively covering when and how to use it.

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