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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses crucial behavior: signals are returned as triggered/not-triggered under signal_summary, insufficient history results in a not-triggered status with a warning rather than a failure, and call pricing. This fully compensates for the missing annotations.

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 well-structured paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by detailed signal definitions and behavior. No redundant sentences; the pricing note is useful and earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return experience (signal_summary with triggered/not-triggered, date, detail). It also covers edge-case behavior (insufficient history) and pricing. This is a complete specification for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 carries the burden. It defines each signal precisely and clarifies that `lookback` scopes the golden/death cross checks. It does not explain `range` or `interval`, but their enum values are self-explanatory, and the most complex parameters are thoroughly addressed.

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 ('Detect') and resource ('classic technical-analysis signals on a ticker's price history'), listing six concrete signals. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_price_history or compute_indicator, which are about raw data or single indicators.

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 usage context: 'Each requested signal is evaluated and reported as triggered/not-triggered' and 'Signals (omit `signals` to check all six)' tells the agent how to parameterize the request. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, so it isn't a 5.

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