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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully explains the convergence score semantics and lists possible outcome values (confirmed/false_alarm/pending), but does not cover whether this is read-only, rate limits, or return volume/cardinality. The outcome enumeration is useful behavioral context, but it's thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by return field enumeration and a clarifying note on convergence. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description does list some return fields (warning type, severity, convergence, outcome), which helps. However, for a zero-annotation tool with no output schema, it lacks completeness on return structure, ordering, and safety profile. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 the schema already documents both parameters with descriptions and examples. The description adds 'Requires: exchange, symbol', which reinforces requiredness but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3, with a slight uplift for explicitly stating requirements, but no new syntax or format details.

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+resource (retrieves early-warning signals for a token) with scope (last 7 days) and enumerates returned fields. Clear what it does, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_microburst, get_unanimous, or get_pair_gate, which could plausibly overlap with anomaly detection.

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?

Implied usage: the description mentions 'early-warning signals' and 'convergence', suggesting use for anomaly detection, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or when-not-to-use versus alternatives like get_unanimous or get_microburst. A caller must infer context.

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