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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses the return content (warmup-aligned series, latest values, summary), parameter aliases, default length of 20, the all-warmup NaN pitfall when range is too short, response echoing of effective params, and the paid cost per call. This is far more transparent than typical tool descriptions.

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?

Though the description is long, every sentence contributes operational value. It is well-organized: purpose, return value, parameter tuning, aliases, warnings, and cost. The front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan, and the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, 8 indicators, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers behavior, parameters, and common pitfalls thoroughly. It lacks explicit response field names and does not clarify `interval` semantics, but the provided guidance is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by mapping parameters to indicators (length for SMA/EMA/RSI/ATR/ADX/BBANDS), explaining MACD/BBANDS/STOCH parameters, aliases, and nested params flexibility. The only notable gap is the `interval` parameter, which is not explained in the description despite being present 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compute a technical indicator' and explicitly lists supported indicators (RSI, MACD, SMA, EMA, BBANDS, ATR, ADX, STOCH). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compute_correlation_matrix or detect_signals, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a technical indicator over a ticker's price history is needed, and includes detailed guidance on parameter tuning, aliases, and range requirements. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, so it stops short of full usage differentiation.

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