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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the scan is live, trimmed/preview-only, not investment advice, and that the pattern grading is forward-graded on crypto while backtest-confirmed on equities. It also signals the commercial context by mentioning the paid version, which helps set expectations about scope and reliability.

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 three tight sentences: the first front-loads exactly what the tool returns, the second explains its purpose as a paid-scan preview, and the third adds an important methodological disclaimer. Every clause earns its place, and the sibling tool reference is efficiently appended.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete: it states the counts, fields, grading scope, live nature, preview limitation, disclaimers, and the paid alternative. An agent can call this tool and interpret its result without needing additional context.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to bear. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately adds no confusing parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as a preview of a crypto SETUP scan, specifying it reports how many of 81 Robinhood-tradable coins show one of two washed-shape patterns and lists the top-3 hits with specific fields (grade, GO, fuel vs BTC, room). It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_crypto_setups_live by labeling this one a 'PREVIEW' and 'trimmed slice' of the paid version.

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 states the tool is a 'LIVE trimmed slice of the paid scan, so you can judge the read before paying', giving clear context for when to use it. It names the alternative get_crypto_setups_live for the full hit list, though it could more explicitly state 'use this for preview; use live for full results'.

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