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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like, whether rate limits apply, or how periodLength affects the calculation. The description only mentions the use of the FMP DEMA API, but offers no details about output or side effects.

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 two sentences, with the first providing a direct, specific statement of the tool's function and the second adding a brief user-value context. There is no unnecessary repetition or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Although the schema covers all five parameters, the description lacks important context for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not describe what the returned DEMA data looks like, how to interpret the values, or how the date range (from/to) interacts with the required parameters. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters like 'periodLength' or 'timeframe' beyond what they already provide. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage, but there is no extra value from the description.

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 clearly states the tool calculates the Double Exponential Moving Average (DEMA) for a stock, using a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('DEMA'). This distinguishes it from sibling indicator tools like getEMA or getSMA by naming the exact indicator and its purpose.

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 a generic context ('analyze trends and identify potential buy or sell signals') but provides no guidance on when to choose DEMA over other indicators (e.g., getEMA, getTEMA, getSMA). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without a decision framework.

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