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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'calculates' a value but does not disclose behavior such as whether it returns a time series or a single value, whether it uses adjusted prices, or any side effects (e.g., API rate limits, authentication). The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, and there is no clarity on the output format.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what the tool does, the second suggests its practical use. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks behavioral context such as what the output represents, how the date range affects results, and how this tool fits with sibling indicators. It is complete enough for a basic call but insufficient for nuanced agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it simply names the indicator without explaining how each parameter affects the calculation. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a Simple Moving Average for a stock, using a specific verb (Calculate) and resource (SMA for a stock). It distinguishes itself from sibling indicators like getEMA, getWMA, and getRSI by naming the specific indicator. The mention of 'FMP SMA API' also adds specificity.

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 usage for analyzing trends and identifying buy/sell signals, but does not explicitly state when to prefer SMA over other indicators or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and purpose rather than explicit guidance.

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