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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: buy/add are stamped only after the daily bar is final while exit/trim occur intra-session, and rules re-fire on every bar with active_since and occurrences. This materially changes how an agent should interpret results; only rate/pagination behavior is absent.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph opens with what is returned and the ordering, then layers timing and run semantics. Dense but every sentence carries information; the semicolon-heavy last sentence is the only mild readability cost.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and fully documented params, the description covers signal types, ordering, timing semantics, and the fields that accompany each signal (active_since, occurrences). Only the overall response shape and paging behavior are left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by explaining what a 'run' is, which is exactly what the state enum (new vs active) depends on, and by tying types to their recording timing. It doesn't restate days or market, but it supplies the conceptual meaning 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?

States a specific verb+resource: signals recorded on the watchlist, with the exact signal vocabulary (buy, add, exit, trim, price_alert) and ordering (newest first). It is clearly distinct from watchlist/trade siblings in substance, though it never names an alternative tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for reviewing strategy signals, but nothing says when to choose it over get_price_alerts or get_watchlist, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate context, no routing guidance.

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