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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that—no idempotency, auth requirements, or what happens to running signals—and the endpoint path merely restates the tool name. It neither contradicts nor meaningfully enriches the annotations.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The trailing HTTP path is the only mildly redundant element.

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 mutation tool with a nested body and zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell how to populate status or what the update returns without opening the schema.

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%, so the description is expected to compensate, but it does not. It never explains the id format or that the body accepts exactly ACTIVE/INACTIVE (the enum the schema happens to carry), leaving the nested body largely undocumented.

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 verb (update) and resource (DEX signal bot status), and the DEX/status qualifiers distinguish it from the CEX and prediction status siblings and from put_bot_signal_dex_id. The trailing HTTP path restates the same operation. It is clear, though it never names the sibling it is contrasted with.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. The agent must infer from the name alone that this toggles status rather than editing the bot config (put_bot_signal_dex_id). No prerequisites or context are given.

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