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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral transparency on its own. It mentions 'Calculate' and 'historical price data', implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return format, any API limitations, or whether modifications occur. It is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds useful context without unnecessary detail. No wasted words.

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 five parameters and no output schema. The description explains what the tool does and its use case, but it omits details about return values and parameter interplay. It is adequate for a simple indicator but not fully complete.

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 schema descriptions cover all five parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to restate them. However, it also adds no extra meaning about how parameters affect the result (e.g., effect of periodLength or date ranges), leaving the baseline at 3.

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's function: 'Calculate the Triple Exponential Moving Average (TEMA) for a stock.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and naming 'TEMA' distinguishes it from sibling indicators like getSMA and getEMA.

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 a general use case ('analyze trends and identify potential buy or sell signals') but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer TEMA over other moving averages or alternatives. The usage context is implied rather than clearly delimited.

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