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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the purpose—no mention of ordering, time window, pagination, or what the events represent. Since the annotation covers the read-only nature, the description was expected to add context but does not.

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 description is a single short sentence that names the resource and its purpose without filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, but so terse that it provides only minimal context for an agent.

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 full schema parameter descriptions and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the core purpose. It lacks any mention of return shape, event content, or ordering, but the low complexity and lack of output schema reduce the severity. The description is also in Polish, which may hinder non-Polish agents, but this is not explicitly scored.

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%, with both parameters (limit and sourceFilter) fully described. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies. The enum values and range are already provided in the schema.

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 identifies the resource (webhook events) and a specific purpose (checking whether TradingView reaches the Market Agent), which differentiates it from sibling monitoring tools. It relies on the tool name for the verb 'list', but the intended use is clear.

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 implies a usage scenario (debugging TradingView connectivity) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative tools. The purpose is inferable, but the agent is left to determine when this tool is preferable.

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