get_signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is the *latest* sweep with source URLs and dates, implying a point-in-time snapshot with no historical depth, but says nothing about refresh cadence, auth requirements, or behavior for an unknown client.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the payload contents are listed up front. The verbless noun-phrase opening ('Latest buying-signal sweep...') is slightly less scannable than a verb-first statement, but nothing is wasted.

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 carries the return-value burden and does reasonably well by naming the returned fields. However, for a data-fetch tool it omits result volume/pagination, empty-result behavior, and any indication of freshness or caching, leaving gaps an agent would want before calling it.

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% for the single required 'client' parameter, so the schema adds no meaning. The description compensates only partially by implying the client scopes the sweep to that client's prospect list; it does not state accepted identifier format (ID vs name) or error behavior.

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 resource — the latest buying-signal sweep for one client's prospect list — and even specifies the payload shape (alerts with source URL and date, plus which signals were tracked). It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_prospect_brief or rank_prospects, so it is clear but not differentiating.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among siblings such as get_prospect_brief or rank_prospects. The phrase 'for a client's prospect list' hints at context but leaves the agent to infer whether this is the right tool for a given question.

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