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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, non-destructive, closed-world); the description adds substantial context: it is free with no account, describes the detection heuristic with a concrete numeric example, and names the three output verdicts (BROKER-GRADE, SUSPECT, INDICATIVE). This is well beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with 'FREE, no payment or account' and structured around the problem it solves. Slightly long due to the numeric illustration, but each sentence carries information useful for selection and interpretation.

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, the description compensates by naming the three verdict categories, so an agent knows what to expect back. Combined with the detection list and usage timing, it is nearly complete, missing only finer return-shape detail.

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?

A single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents the bar shape, keying, and 50-3000 range. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (audits) on a specific resource (OHLC bars) and enumerates the exact defects it targets (synthesised opens, frozen zero-range bars, duplicate/out-of-order timestamps, non-bracketing high/low). This clearly distinguishes it from the statistical siblings (deflatedsharpe, drawdown, regime), which test strategies rather than data integrity.

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 says to run it 'BEFORE trusting any backtest built on the data,' giving clear trigger context. It does not name a sibling alternative or spell out when-not to use it, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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