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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: newest-first ordering, a default limit of 20 with a 1-50 range, a total field counting all waiting items, and the required api:read scope. These are exactly the details an agent needs before calling and before interpreting how much it received.

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?

Front-loads scope and ordering, then the field enumeration. The field list is long but earns its place since there is no output schema; a slightly tighter grouping of returned fields would make it easier to scan.

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 supplies the return shape (execution_id, cron_id, cron_name, description, instrument_id, triggered_at, query, result, predicate result), the total counter semantics, and the app_url pointer. Authorization requirements are also covered, leaving nothing an agent needs for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one parameter, so the description must carry it — and it does, supplying the default of 20 and the 1-50 bounds that the schema declares only as min/max without any default value. That default is genuinely new information over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and narrows scope precisely: 'YOUR signals that fired and still wait for your answer', explicitly disambiguating from the sibling list_signals by restricting to unanswered fired signals. It also self-identifies as 'the call for "my fired signals"', so an agent can match user intent without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is clearly implied by the state filter (fired and awaiting answer) and it routes the follow-up action by naming respond_to_signal and telling the agent to pass execution_id. It never explicitly contrasts with list_signals or save_signal, so the when-not guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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