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

With annotations present (readOnly false, destructive false, idempotent false), the description adds real context: conversion can be EXACT or PARTIAL with unconverted lines listed, no TradingView aff_id is emitted, and job_id is server-side re-verified via verification_status. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but the behavioral profile is well disclosed.

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 when-not/alternative routing is front-loaded, which is good, but the opening 'PAPER PREVIEW (sealed:false, is_keep:false, paper:true)' is opaque key:value noise, and the mid-sentence shift between English and French makes it denser than necessary.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be re-explained, yet the description still summarizes them (Pine code, EXACT/PARTIAL status, setup/review URLs). For a 2-param export tool with annotations, this is essentially complete; only alternative-tool routing for the converter siblings 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%: arenascript is documented (20,000 char max) but job_id is not in the schema. The description compensates by explaining job_id in depth — optional, the header cites the CUDA job only when the job script matches the exported script, and it is an optimization result, not a validation.

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 core sentence states a specific verb and resource: exports an ArenaScript strategy into Pine Script v5, with engine semantics (fees 0.1%/side, no slippage) spelled out. However, the opening 'PAPER PREVIEW (sealed:false, is_keep:false, paper:true)' is cryptic internal jargon that delays the actual 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?

Explicitly says 'Not a verdict; for a verdict use get_lab_desktop_handoff', which is a clear when-not + named alternative. It doesn't address when to prefer this over inspect_pine_export_capability or get_pine_converter_contract, both in the sibling list, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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