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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the data is split into demand_zones and supply_zones, but does not explain the meaning of DBR/RBR/RBD/DBD, side effects (though likely read-only), or any filtering behavior beyond what defaults imply.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant phrases. It front-loads the key concept and adds the output structure, though the unexplained acronyms slightly reduce clarity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too sparse to be considered complete for an agent. It does not explain the domain terminology, parameter selection, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for a three-parameter tool.

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 for the three parameters, but it mentions none of them. The text does not clarify the roles of symbol, status, or timeframe, leaving the agent to infer or rely on conventions.

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 identifies the resource as demand/supply zones and clarifies the result is split into demand_zones and supply_zones, which goes beyond the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_support_resistance by referencing DBR/RBR/RBD/DBD, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'calculates'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_support_resistance or get_chart_patterns. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned, so the description does not help an agent choose among related technical-analysis tools.

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