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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it declares the generation is deterministic, that recognized signals drive entry conditions, that short/sell maps to short_entry, and that asset/timeframe are whitelist-restricted.

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, then the determinism rule and recognized signals, then output/style sourcing, ending with the style list. Dense but nearly every clause carries distinct information; the signal enumeration is slightly list-heavy but purposeful.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still notes idea_used as a useful output. It covers determinism, the style set, and the whitelist constraints, though the asset whitelist itself is not enumerated, leaving a minor gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it enumerates the valid style values (balanced, trend, breakout, momentum, mean_reversion, scalping), which the schema leaves as a bare string with no enum, and clarifies that asset/timeframe are constrained to whitelists.

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: 'Génère un ArenaScript canonique et éditable à partir d'une idée.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing exactly what the generator does (named signals become entry conditions, idea_used reports recognition), separating it clearly from repair_arenascript, validate_arenascript, and backtest_arenascript.

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?

The use case is implied (turn an idea into an editable strategy) and prerequisites like whitelisted asset/timeframe and style-driven outputs are stated. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, nor any pointing to alternatives such as repair_arenascript or invent_and_backtest, so the agent must infer routing.

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