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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the data source URL, the publication cutoff date, the exact fields the record contains, and notably that losses are included, which tells the agent the record is not survivorship-biased.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that defines the resource before listing returned fields, with the 'Losses included' caveat placed last where it reads as a clarifying qualifier. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical source URL is slightly incidental.

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 payload (entry, stops, exit, reason, result in R), so an agent knows what it will receive. Pagination behavior and the meaning of the limit parameter are the only real omissions, and both are minor for a read-only record lookup.

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% (ticker documented, limit not). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, but the schema itself supplies limit's type, default and 1-100 bounds, so the gap is partial rather than total. 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 clear verb+resource: it returns closed signals from a published public record, and enumerates the returned fields (entry, original stop, dated stop moves, exit, reason, result in R). It is distinguishable from get_signals by the word 'closed' and the 'public record' framing, but it never explicitly names or contrasts the sibling tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent is not told how this differs from get_signals or get_backtest, nor under what user intent (verifying published performance, auditing results) it should be preferred. Usage is only vaguely inferable from the phrase 'public record'.

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