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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value annotations don't: it describes what comes back (tickers table with RS as a 0–100 percentile and returns in %, plus signal_combos and market_breadth) and cross-references get_market_overview. It stops short of caveats like data recency or backtest-lookahead limitations.

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?

Well front-loaded and chunked with explicit labels (Dùng khi / Không dùng khi / Tham số / Kết quả / Xem thêm), so an agent can skim to the relevant section. The metric enumeration in the first sentence is dense but justified because there is no output schema to carry it.

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 and five optional parameters, the description compensates by naming the return structure (tickers table, RS percentile semantics, signal_combos, market_breadth) and the default/max behavior of top. The shape of market_breadth and signal_combos is still left vague, which keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the prose 'Tham số' section largely restates that. It does add light framing (min_adtv as a VND liquidity floor, detail summary|full as column selection), but nothing beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Phân tích kỹ thuật định lượng của AlgolabX') and enumerates the exact outputs: multi-timeframe RS ranking, MACD, bottom signals, beta, return std-dev, market breadth, and backtested signal combos. It also explicitly differentiates from get_price_history, so an agent can pick it apart from all eleven siblings.

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?

Explicit 'Dùng khi' (find strong/weak tickers, confirm trend, scan by historical evidence) and 'Không dùng khi: cần chuỗi giá (→ get_price_history)' with a named alternative. Both the positive trigger and the exclusion are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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