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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It adds useful context by explaining that 'ACTIVE' encompasses PENDING/CONFIRMED states, which clarifies the status parameter. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (relying on the output schema) or any limitations, making the transparency only partial.

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 extremely concise, with only two sentences that both carry meaningful information. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a key clarification about the status value. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it well-structured and efficient.

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 is relatively simple and has an output schema, which reduces the need to explain return values. However, the description leaves gaps about valid parameter values (e.g., timeframe, status options) and lacks any guidance on invocation context. It is adequate for basic usage but not fully complete for an agent to handle all edge 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the meaning of 'ACTIVE' for the status parameter but leaves 'symbol' and 'timeframe' undefined. While symbol and timeframe might be intuitive, the description does not clarify allowed values, formats, or defaults beyond the schema, which is insufficient for a tool with zero parameter descriptions.

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 the tool retrieves multi-bar chart patterns with specific examples (DOUBLE_TOP, HEAD_AND_SHOULDERS). The verb 'get' is implied by the tool name, and the term 'Multi-bar chart patterns' distinguishes it from related tools like candlestick patterns, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_candlestick_patterns or get_support_resistance. The only hint is the mention of 'multi-bar' patterns, but there is no clear exclusionary or comparative language, leaving the usage context underdefined.

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