Wait for next signal

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which already indicate this is a safe read operation. The description adds significant behavioral context: it explains long-polling semantics, the timeout returning {signal: null, timedOut: true}, and the watermark condition. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail edge cases like network errors.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the most critical information (long-poll, condition, timeout). Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second explains behavior, third gives operational guidance. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 params, nested config object) and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage loop and key parameters. It might benefit from explaining what a 'signal' contains, but the sibling get_indicator_signal likely defines that. Overall, sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 very low (14%), so the description must compensate. It explains the critical parameter lastSeenSignalTs (the watermark) and timeoutMs (holds the call up to that time). However, it doesn't explicitly describe config, provider, or the exact format of signal, but those are secondary and possibly inferable from sibling context.

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 purpose: long-poll for a new signal on a specific (indicator, symbol, resolution). It explicitly mentions the timeout behavior and the condition (time > lastSeenSignalTs) for detecting a new signal, which is specific and distinguishes it from any simple fetch operation.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it says to pair with get_indicator_signal to bootstrap lastSeenSignalTs, and it outlines the idiomatic agent loop (get → subscribe → react → update watermark → loop). This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and how it fits with siblings, leaving no ambiguity.

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