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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing temporal behavior via `asof`, the boolean-versus-numeric condition requirement, and the numeric sort order. It does not describe return format or pagination behavior, but those are partly covered by the input schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. Every sentence contributes either to the action, parameter rules, or output ordering.

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 query tool with a rich 100%-covered schema, the description provides enough invocation context: what it returns, how temporal queries work, and how conditions apply. The main gap is not stating the exact response shape, but the phrase 'Find tickers' plus the schema's pagination fields make it usable.

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?

The schema already covers all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical value beyond the schema by spelling out that booleans need no condition, giving concrete condition examples like '>70' or '<=200', and reinforcing the numeric sort semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find tickers that match a single signal'. The 'single signal' qualifier distinguishes it from broader scan/list tools, and the temporal scope ('right now' or past with `asof`) further narrows its purpose.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool—when you need tickers matching one signal now or historically—and even gives boolean/numeric condition rules. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as tickerbot_scan, so the guidance is implicit rather than exclusionary.

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