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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses several behavioral traits: the output is a plan with specific components, the stop is based on 'recent swing or 1.5x-ATR proxy', bias defaults to auto, and a PNG chart is embedded. It does not discuss side effects or rate limits, but for a plan-generation tool this is largely irrelevant and the description is notably transparent.

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?

Two dense sentences contain no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and lists all output components; the second adds usage trigger and parameter behavior. Every word contributes information, making it both concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is complex (multi-part output, no output schema), and the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned (entry, stop, targets, position size, thesis, chart), how parameters influence behavior (risk_pct, bias), and when to invoke it. It stands alone without requiring the schema or annotations to fill gaps.

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 only 33% (only ticker has a trivial description). The description compensates by explaining risk_pct as the driver of position size and bias=auto as the direction-selection behavior. These are the only non-obvious parameters, and the description gives them clear meaning that the schema lacks.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Actionable long/short plan for a ticker') and enumerates concrete outputs: entry, stop, targets, position size, thesis, and an embedded PNG chart. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by detailing the plan structure and the included chart.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this when the user asks "how would I trade X"'. It also clarifies that bias=auto picks direction from TA stance. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or name specific alternatives, limiting the guidance to a 'when' rather than a full 'when/when-not' scenario.

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