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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit for adding real domain behavior instead of repeating them. It discloses which JSON order keys are parsed (order_type, stop_price, limit_price, trail_*, stop_loss, take_profit, percent, bots), that FLATTEN is treated the same way, and asset-class restrictions on stop loss/take profit and percent closes. It stops short of describing what the preview returns or how parse errors surface.

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 purpose and safety guarantee lead, followed by the key list and asset-class caveats — appropriate front-loading with no filler sentences. The enumerations are dense but each item carries semantic weight for the parser's accepted input.

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?

For a validation tool with no output schema and only annotations to lean on, the description should indicate what a preview yields (parsed representation vs. error) so an agent knows how to act on the result. Input-side coverage is solid, but the return/verification side is left implicit, a meaningful gap for a tool whose whole job is producing a checkable result.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine meaning by enumerating the order keys the single 'message' string may carry and noting it matches what nyria_send_alert accepts. It still adds no length or formatting syntax for the message beyond the schema's 1-2000 character bounds.

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 opening sentence pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ('Parse a trade alert') and immediately states the crucial scope boundary: no orders are placed. It differentiates the tool from the mutating path by describing itself as a pre-flight check 'before sending it live', though it never names nyria_send_alert directly, which leaves the sibling mapping one step short of explicit.

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?

'Use this to verify your alert message will be interpreted correctly before sending it live' clearly describes the situation that selects this tool over the send path. It does not spell out any when-not conditions or name the alternative tool explicitly, so the guidance is strong but not fully closed-loop.

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