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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the list of computed indicators but does not disclose behavioral details such as data freshness, error cases, or dependency on historical data availability. This is adequate given the annotations, but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact indicator list and clear use cases. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With one required parameter, a full output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential decision points. It lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling tool get_market_signals, which is a minor gap, but overall the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100% and the single 'ticker' parameter is well-documented with examples. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the NZX company context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('technical analysis indicators for an NZX company') and enumerates concrete indicator types, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_market_signals, but the detailed indicator list provides enough specificity to identify what this tool returns.

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 description gives explicit use cases: 'trading signals, momentum analysis, and technical screening.' This tells an agent when to select the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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