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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. Description adds workflow context, status filter options, and the explicit statement that it never executes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, workflow, and status details. It is front-loaded with key purpose information. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers the necessary context: workflow integration, read-only nature, status filtering, and differentiation from sibling execution tools. It is complete for an intelligence-gathering tool.

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 has 0% coverage. Description only explains the 'status' parameter with its enum values. Other parameters (asset, limit, caller_id) are not described, leaving some ambiguity. However, the tool's main filter (status) is well-documented.

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 clearly states it returns 'signal-to-action suggestions' as a read operation, and explicitly distinguishes from execution tools by saying 'this tool never executes anything'. It provides a specific verb and resource.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to use ('INTELLIGENCE -> DECIDE step') and which tools to pair with ('backtest_strategy + get_risk_assessment'). Also states that action requires going through normal strategy tools, providing clear guidance.

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