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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Read-only public research data. No account access, no order placement or fund transfers. Not investment advice,' which reinforces the safety profile and clarifies limitations beyond the annotation booleans. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence packs the purpose, usage routing, and safety disclaimer without wasted words. The core scope is front-loaded ('One-symbol'), followed by actionable routing. Every phrase earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (six parameters, one required), the description provides sufficient routing and safety context. An output schema exists, so return format is covered structurally. It could mention default parameter values (e.g., quote default USDT) but the schema already provides that, so completeness is adequate for an agent to call correctly.

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?

The schema describes all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the description carries no burden to explain them. It mentions 'price, kline clip, project' as part of the output, which hints at what the snapshot contains but does not add parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 opens with 'One-symbol: price, kline clip, project,' which clearly identifies the tool as a single-symbol snapshot getter. It also names sibling tools for other use cases (trend, gate, batch, breadth), distinguishing it from alternatives without needing to inspect other schemas. Slightly fragmentary phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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?

Explicit routing guidance is given: 'Trend→markettrend_get_kline. Gate→marketdetail_get_kline. Many→batch_market_snapshot. Breadth→get_market_overview.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also notes the read-only research context, which implies when it's appropriate to call.

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