Explain an exit signal

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the signal is deterministic and that output is 'evidence and next checks,' which is modest extra context, but it does not disclose thresholds, rate limits, or what a response contains.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the compressed jargon (DEEP/THIN/CRITICAL) trades clarity for brevity.

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, 0% parameter coverage, and unexplained signal categories, the description leaves major gaps: what input produces the signal, what 'evidence' is returned, and what the next checks look like. The internal vocabulary is never defined, so an agent lacks enough to call or interpret the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it says nothing about the two parameters. It does not clarify that 'token' is a 0x contract address nor that 'sizeUsd' is a position size bounded at 10,000,000 USD, leaving both inputs semantically undefined.

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 verb ('turn ... into evidence and next checks') and resource ('the DEEP, THIN or CRITICAL signal') are stated, so the general intent is inferable. But the description never explains where that signal comes from, what DEEP/THIN/CRITICAL mean, or how it differs from siblings like simulate_exit or compare_exit_sizes. Vague purpose with no sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to any alternative tool. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would call explain_exit_signal rather than simulate_exit, compare_exit_sizes, or inspect_token.

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