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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that the tool is 'local and idempotent with no destructive side effects', does not run paid analysis, maps to the live discovery contract, and must not expose internal-only tools. It also clarifies that it is not a trading/execution/advice tool. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting any annotation.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: use-case trigger, parameter summary, behavioral contract, exclusions, and pointers. It is front-loaded with the key 'when to use' signal and uses a clear, structured flow. No redundant filler or vague phrasing.

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 low-complexity help tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is fully self-sufficient. It explains all behavioral notes, parameter optionality, use cases, and exclusions. The presence of an output schema means return value details are not required, and the description doesn't need to cover them.

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 is 3. The description adds a small but useful usage hint: 'callers may omit all arguments for overview help', which is not explicitly stated in the schema. It also groups the parameters as optional aliases (topic, detail, include_examples, question, query), which helps the agent recognize interchangeable forms. This is marginal but genuine value beyond the schema.

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 identifies this as a help/discovery-tier tool with a specific verb ('use') and resource ('DeltaSignal help'), and lists concrete topics like pricing, fields, grants, x402, Morning Brief, Company Report, MSTR, perp adapters, SPECTRA, and examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling data tools by explaining it translates natural-language orientation requests into the discovery contract and explicitly states what it is not (trading/execution/investment-advice).

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 gives explicit when-to-use criteria ('when the user asks for help, available commands, MCP tools, core concepts, pricing, parser-stable fields, grants, x402, Morning Brief, Company Report, MSTR treasury review, perp adapters, SPECTRA, or examples') and when-not-to-use exclusions ('does not run paid analysis routes or expose internal-only tools'). It also points to alternative resources (tools/list, /v1/pricing, /v1/contract/fields, /v1/readiness).

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