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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the algorithm sources (TPO, initial balance, etc.) and the output categories, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., read-only, no side effects) or any limitations. Adequate but not thorough.

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 two concise sentences: the first explains what the tool does and its output, the second provides a usage question. No redundant information, perfectly front-loaded.

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 7 parameters all documented in schema and no output schema, the description lists the possible day-types, which is helpful. It lacks details on return structure or error conditions, but the given information is sufficient for most use cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented (e.g., venue enum, candles optional, timeframe defaults). The tool description adds minimal parameter insight beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is a 'Market Profile day-type classifier' and lists the specific categories (trend, balance, neutral_trend, normal, normal_var). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on day-type classification using TPO, initial balance, etc., which is unique among the workflow tools.

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?

The description explicitly provides a usage question: 'Use for "is this a trend day or a balance day?"', giving clear context. While it does not mention when not to use or alternatives, the explicit usage case suffices for a 4.

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