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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ranking formula (severity x confidence x magnitude x novelty), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what "active" means, whether results are paginated or capped, ordering stability, or cost/latency characteristics.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose and ranking rationale front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical formula is dense but earns its space; only minor loss is that it crowds out other behavioral details.

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 three-parameter, non-required, read-oriented listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and filtering but omits result shape, ordering guarantees, and limit semantics. It is adequate to attempt a call but leaves real gaps an agent would want closed.

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 only 33%, with limit entirely undocumented and severity documented only via its enum. The description adds meaning by confirming severity and category are filters, but it never explains limit's role, default of 25, or the 100 maximum, so the coverage gap is only partly compensated.

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 ("List ranked active signals") and clarifies the source system (VolatiAI) plus the ranking formula, which is more informative than a bare name restatement. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_categories or get_sector, leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

"Filter by severity or category" implies when the optional parameters are useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no naming of alternatives such as search or sector-specific lookups. The agent must infer that this is the broad discovery entry point.

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