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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It explains window semantics for state flags, null-ended_at behavior, point-firing semantics for event flags, overlap behavior for from/to, merge behavior, and paging direction, all beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 packed with high-value information across a few sentences, front-loading the core purpose before diving into semantics. The example and exclusion are placed where they are most useful, and there is no filler.

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?

Despite 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, how state vs event rows differ, how date windows behave, how pagination works, how merge works, and when to use another tool. This is unusually complete for a list endpoint.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning: it ties from/to to a human-readable example, explains overlap semantics, clarifies default merge behavior with a concrete example, and notes that cursor pages older within the window. This goes well beyond the schema property descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('list'), resource ('occurrence spans of a boolean signal'), and scope ('for one ticker'), then distinguishes STATE flags from EVENT flags. It also explicitly excludes numerics and custom signals and points to tickerbot_get_series, making it clearly distinct from 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?

It provides an explicit when-to-use context ('Occurrence SPANS... for one ticker', 'built-in booleans only') and an explicit when-not-to-use alternative ('numerics and custom signals have no precomputed spans (use tickerbot_get_series)'). The 'Golden crosses in June' example also makes the intended query pattern concrete.

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