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

Annotations mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no matching semantics (fuzzy, substring, or exact), no ranking, no return shape, and no pagination behavior.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste. For a 7-parameter tool, though, this is under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 has 7 parameters, including the filters role, category, and regime_direction, and no output schema. Many sibling tools overlap with it, yet the description explains neither the results nor how the filters interact, so it leaves significant 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 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description loosely maps to the search_type enum (name/params/keywords) but adds no meaning. Terse schema descriptions like 'Signal library module' and 'Market regime band' get no value examples from the description.

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 says it searches signals by name, parameters, or description keywords, which conveys the basic action and resource. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like list_signals, match_signals, get_signal, or kb_get_signal_quick_reference, and "signal" is never defined.

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 guidance on when to use this tool rather than list_signals (browse), match_signals, or get_signal (fetch by ID). It also gives no workflow context, such as finding signals before evaluate_signal or build_strategy.

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