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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond this: it specifies the per-symbol return object, states that all thresholds are tunable inputs, and explicitly labels the output as a heuristic signal. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then states the setup criteria, the return shape, the tunable-threshold design, and a research caveat. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately spells out the return object fields. It also explains the strategy logic and tunable parameters. The main gap is that it does not state that at least one of symbol/symbols is required, and the schema itself has no required fields, which could lead an agent to call with no tickers. Minor edge-case behavior around invalid symbols or insufficient history is also not covered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds some value by explaining that thresholds are tunable and by tying criteria like 'RSI oversold' to rsi_threshold, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Screen one or more US tickers for a mean-reversion bounce setup on daily bars.' It then gives concrete criteria (support/MA proximity, RSI oversold, bullish candle, volume) that make the tool clearly distinct from generic stock quote or candlestick siblings like stock_quote, candlestick_signals, and support_resistance_levels.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the user wants a mean-reversion bounce screen on US stocks. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as candlestick_signals or support_resistance_levels, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The 'for research, not investment advice' caveat is a usage constraint but not an alternative-routing guideline.

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