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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the required api:account scope, the side effect that it records the answer and clears the signal from the waiting list, the explicit non-effect ('never places a trade'), and specific error semantics (409 already-answered, 404 not-yours). The non-idempotent/409 pairing is internally consistent with idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, scope/side-effect clarification, then error cases. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the downstream effect, the scope requirement, the negative guarantee, and failure modes. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must carry the load: it supplies the critical provenance of execution_id (from get_fired_signals), which the schema omits entirely. The response values are restated rather than added, and format/constraint detail beyond origin is absent, so it compensates only partially for the zero coverage.

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 and resource ('Answer one of YOUR fired signals ... with accepted or rejected') and anchors the resource to a named sibling, get_fired_signals, which supplies execution_id. An agent can tell this apart from list_signals, save_signal, and respond_to_recommendation 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?

Explicitly scopes usage to 'YOUR fired signals' and points to get_fired_signals as the source of execution_id, so the calling workflow is clear. It does not, however, exclude or compare against respond_to_recommendation, the nearest alternative, so guidance stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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