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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing that detection is HEURISTIC with conservative default thresholds and that output is not investment advice. It also spells out the returned fields (pattern, date, direction, barIndex), which goes beyond the annotations. Rate limits or latency are not mentioned, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, then return shape, then caveat. The pattern enumeration is long but useful for matching a user's request; nothing is padded, though the sentence is dense.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and it discloses the heuristic nature and disclaimer. With annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering both parameters, the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly; only the absence of usage routing against siblings is a gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so symbol and lookback_days are already fully documented in the schema (including the default of 60 and the 5-400 range). The description adds only the vague phrase 'recent daily bars', so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (detect) and resource (classic candlestick patterns) scoped to a ticker's recent daily bars, and enumerates the exact patterns covered. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like support_resistance_levels, iv_analytics, or stock_history, which do different technical work on the same instrument.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'on a ticker's recent daily bars' and the research disclaimer, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is named (e.g., no routing versus other technical-analysis siblings). An agent can infer intent but gets no explicit guidance.

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