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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, closed-world operation, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: only alerts that made it into the public channel digest are returned, so results lag the paid real-time feed, and outcomes are measured against the market. That freshness/latency constraint is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 core purpose and the returned fields are front-loaded, and the latency caveat lands last where it matters. The Korean and English versions are near-duplicates, which adds length but serves a bilingual audience and costs little.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, returned fields, and data-freshness limits. Only the pagination/limit behavior and how outcomes are computed are left thin, which are minor gaps.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the count and its 1-20 bounds. The description adds nothing about the limit, which is acceptable given the coverage baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('show recent public KnockWatch signals, newest first') and enumerates the returned fields (alert time, coin, outcome vs. market). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like signal_record or signal_guide, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'latest public signals' and the latency note steers agents who need real-time data elsewhere, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is stated. An agent must infer that signal_record is the tool for older/detailed records.

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