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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as data source, latency, rate limits, result ordering, or how the pattern is evaluated, so it contributes nothing beyond the annotations for a network-scanning tool.

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 pattern definition is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is an orderly args list with no filler sentences. The Args block partially duplicates schema field names, but it remains compact and scannable rather than padded.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation elaboration of results, the definition should say more about what the scan returns (order, fields, count semantics) and how min_growth is measured. It is adequate to invoke the tool but leaves real gaps for correct interpretation of output.

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 carries the full parameter burden, and it does document all six parameters with meaning: pattern_type is disambiguated ('bullish' = growing, 'bearish' = shrinking), candle_count range (2-5) is given, and exchange/timeframe examples (BINANCE, KUCOIN; 5m, 15m, 1h, 4h) are supplied. It falls short of a 5 because min_growth's unit/format and limit's behavior are not fully clarified.

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 ('Scan for coins') and a concrete pattern resource ('consecutive growing/shrinking candles'), which is clear and actionable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling scanners like advanced_candle_pattern or bollinger_scan, so an agent cannot tell when this is the right scanner versus another.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling scanners. It describes what parameters exist but never tells the agent under what market conditions or intent this tool should be selected.

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