overlap

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context: 'Applied to price data automatically — no need to fetch prices first,' which explains internal behavior. This is sufficient; no contradictions.

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 well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then provides usage hints, and lists indicators. It is concise with no redundant sentences, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 12 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose and key usage points. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly, though a clearer definition of 'overlap' would enhance completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds extra clarity by reiterating the tickers requirement and listing the indicator enum values explicitly, helping the agent understand the necessary parameters.

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 states 'Overlap technical indicators' and lists available indicators (SMA, EMA, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like momentum and volatility. However, the term 'overlap' is not explicitly defined, leaving some ambiguity about whether it means overlaying on charts or computing overlapping types.

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 clear usage guidance: it requires tickers, automatically fetches price data, and lists the specific indicators available. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling tools or state when to use it vs. alternatives, missing the opportunity to guide the agent on selection.

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