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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it discloses the persist side-effect ('menulis row compact ke pipeline_decision_log ... bukan auto-tune'), warns about high token cost, and references a limitations document. This is useful context that helps the agent decide when and how to invoke it.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: pipeline stages, non-gate outputs, persistence, replacement value, cost warning, and limitations pointer. The first sentence is a long run-on using arrows, but the structure is manageable and information-rich for a tool of this complexity.

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 16-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision context: outcome categories (TRADE/WATCH/NO_TRADE), ranking score range, grid parameters readiness, extra non-gate information, and a pointer to known limitations. It does not enumerate the full return structure, but what an agent needs to decide whether to call this expensive pipeline is present.

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%, with each of the 16 parameters already documented in detail within the schema. The description does not add parameter-level semantics; it only restates high-level concepts like ATR and leverage in the pipeline summary. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states the tool's purpose with a concrete resource ('Grid Bot Futures penuh dalam 1 call') and enumerates each pipeline stage (hard screen, Tier-1 intel, grid bounds, risk sizing, TRADE/WATCH/NO_TRADE). It also names key outputs (rankingScore 0-100, grid parameters) and explicitly positions itself as replacing ~8 manual calls, making it distinct from granular siblings.

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'pakai untuk keputusan akhir, bukan eksplorasi' (use for final decisions, not exploration) and 'Gantikan ~8 tool call manual' (replaces manual calls), which indicates when to prefer this composite tool. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the exclusion of exploratory use is clear.

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