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

Annotations only give a generic safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false). The description goes well beyond that: it discloses engine semantics (Lab engine, 0.1%/side fees, no slippage), that conversion may be partial with unconverted lines listed, the partner-attribution policy (never emits a TradingView aff_id), and the meaning of verification_status. It stops short of stating any server-side side effects of the call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and deliverable, and most sentences carry useful content. It is dense and mixes French and English, and the aff_id policy sentence is somewhat tangential, but nothing is pure padding.

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 two-parameter conversion tool with an output schema (which itself covers return values), the description supplies the engine assumptions, conversion-fidelity caveat, and the optional job_id semantics needed to call it correctly. Only explicit sibling/alternative routing is missing.

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% (only arenascript is described), but the description compensates by explaining job_id in depth: it is optional, only cited in the header if the job's script matches the exported script, and is an optimization result rather than a validation. This adds real meaning beyond the bare string/maxLength 64 schema entry.

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 and resource (export an ArenaScript strategy to Pine Script v5 ready to paste into TradingView) plus the exact deliverable (code, EXACT/PARTIAL conversion status, setup/review URLs). The purpose is unambiguous, though it never names a sibling such as inspect_pine_export_capability or get_pine_converter_contract to differentiate itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (call it when you want a Pine export), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance (e.g., whether to check export capability first). The job_id conditional is a parameter rule, not tool-selection guidance.

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