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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only public research data' and 'No account access, no order placement or fund transfers.' It adds the important distinction that output is descriptive research, not a forecast, which is beyond annotation coverage. This provides valuable behavioral context without contradicting 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?

The description is concise with a few dense sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides alternatives and safety cues. Each sentence contributes to understanding, and no redundant information exists. It's slightly packed but still structured effectively.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format is covered elsewhere. The description explains the data source (OHLCV only), its research nature, and its read-only scope. It also names related tools for alternative needs. For a moderately simple tool with a required symbol and optional time parameters, this is adequately complete.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-specific details, but doesn't need to because the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool produces multi-timeframe chart-derived labels (bullish/bearish/neutral) from OHLCV data, explicitly differentiating itself from siblings by noting 'OHLCV→get_kline' and 'Raw columns→get_indicator_history'. This distinguishes it from similar tools and provides a precise resource and verb.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use it (for descriptive research labels) and when not to (not a price forecast or investment recommendation). It also names alternatives (get_kline, get_indicator_history) and implies they are for raw data needs. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this tool when you need a technical analysis summary' but the alternatives and exclusions make it clear enough.

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