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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuine context beyond it: three horizons, a one-line reason per horizon, and the important coverage caveat that uncurated US tickers receive only a technical-only score requiring Pro. It does not mention rate limits or what a missing/unsupported ticker yields, which is the remaining gap.

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, no filler, with the primary output (score and signal per horizon) front-loaded and the coverage caveat following it. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return shape: a 0-100 score, a signal, and a reason line per horizon. The main omission is whether horizons are labeled fields in the response and what happens for unknown tickers, but for a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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% and the single parameter already documents its format with examples (NVDA, SHOP). The description still adds meaning by clarifying that the ticker may be a stock or an ETF and that non-curated US tickers are accepted but downgraded to technical-only output.

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 ('Get the QSignals score (0-100) and signal') and bounds scope to a single stock or ETF across short/mid/long horizons. The 'one stock' framing implicitly sets it apart from get_all_scores, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage context is implied by the single-ticker scope and the note that any US ticker works while curated stocks get the full score. There is no explicit 'use this instead of get_all_scores when…' routing or prerequisite guidance, leaving the agent to infer when this beats the batch sibling.

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