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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing interpretive traits an agent cannot get elsewhere: scores are ordinal heuristic ranks rather than probabilities, and diagnostics are capped at 10 examples per category with available vs. returned counts. It does not state cache freshness or staleness, which is the one relevant omission.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause carries information (cached scope, ordinal-score caveat, diagnostics shape). Slightly dense in the final clause but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still usefully sketches the diagnostics payload. Combined with full schema coverage and explicit annotations, only cache freshness and sibling routing are missing for a two-parameter read 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 coverage is 100% — both 'limit' and 'window' have descriptions including ranges and defaults — so the schema does the parameter work. The description adds nothing about limit/window semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Return public cached Confluence v1 signals') and names the domain clearly enough to separate it from fund/stock siblings. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close siblings get_confluence_methodology and get_signal_history, so an agent still has to guess which of the three to call.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_signal_history (historical signals) or get_confluence_methodology (how the scores are built). The mention of 'source_url for full API details' hints at a follow-up path but is not a usage rule, leaving selection to inference from the name alone.

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