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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that the data mirrors a public external list and is educational only, which is useful context. It says nothing about refresh cadence, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then the concrete payload fields, then a brief disclaimer. No filler or repetition of the title, though the parenthetical URL reference is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is the key thing an agent needs to know. All four inputs are documented structurally (descriptions or enums), and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. Only the freshness semantics of "today's" list are left implicit.

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 50%: 'limit' and 'ticker' carry schema descriptions, while 'market' and 'timeframe' have enums with defaults that largely self-document their accepted values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all — the field list refers to output columns, not inputs. With structured fields doing the work, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and scope: "Today's live setups from the ALK board", with the concrete returned fields (ticker, side, rule, entry, stop, status) spelled out. It also anchors the content to a known public page (alktrading.com/today). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_backtest or get_track_record, but those are clearly distinct activities.

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?

"Today's live setups" implies the when-to-use context (current day, live signals as opposed to historical backtests or strategy listings), so the usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the siblings for the historical/strategy cases. "Educational only" is a disclaimer rather than guidance.

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