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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns the latest swings in both directions with specific retracement levels, but does not mention potential limitations, such as how swings are determined, data freshness, or any prerequisites (e.g., valid symbol format). The description adds context beyond the name but lacks deeper operational detail.

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, tightly packed sentence: 'Latest fibonacci retracement swings (UP/DOWN) with 236/382/500/618/786 levels.' Every word conveys meaningful information, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. It achieves high clarity with minimal verbosity.

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 relatively simple data retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential 'what' (Fibonacci levels) and key attributes. It does not explain output structure, but the output schema can cover that. The only gap is lack of usage context such as prerequisites or whether the symbol/timeframe apply to both UP/DOWN swings, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining how to use 'symbol' or 'timeframe'. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but no guidance is given on valid values, formats, or the effect of the default timeframe. The description provides no added meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 provides 'Latest fibonacci retracement swings (UP/DOWN) with 236/382/500/618/786 levels,' specifying both the resource (Fibonacci retracement) and key attributes (direction and ratios). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like support/resistance or candlestick patterns, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when Fibonacci retracement levels are needed, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no direct comparisons to sibling tools, so the agent must infer applicability from the title and description alone.

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