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

Annotations already mark readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context with the caveat that results are based on hierarchy_context and may be empty when collector lag is high, and it clarifies the tool's informational nature. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, Triggers, When to call, Prerequisites, Next steps, Caveats, Args, Disclaimer) and front-loaded with the purpose. It is a bit long due to multiple example triggers and a disclaimer, but every section serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's analytical complexity, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, prerequisites, next steps, caveats, and parameter semantics. It also explains the dependency on hierarchy_context and the possibility of empty results, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, especially with an output schema 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 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly with an 'Args' section: market_id lists allowed values (crypto, kr_stock, us_stock), symbol provides examples, and coin is explained as a legacy alias. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema properties.

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 explicitly states 'Role-aware signal alignment per symbol (timing / trend / swing / regime) plus hierarchy alignment', giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_signal_detail by focusing on multi-timeframe alignment across roles.

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?

Provides clear triggers ('is BTC bullish across timeframes?') and an explicit 'When to call' section for multi-timeframe analysis and cross-role agreement checks. It recommends get_signal_detail as a prerequisite but does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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