indicators_atr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by specifying the return outputs: current ATR, normalized ATR as % of price, history, and volatility regime. 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?

Description is only 3 sentences covering purpose, usage, and outputs. No filler, front-loaded with key information, and every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, description lists the return values (ATR, normalized ATR, history, regime). It is complete enough for a volatility indicator tool. Minor gap: no mention of input length requirements or edge cases, but sufficient.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters (high, low, close, period). The description only says 'Provide an array of prices,' which adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it computes Average True Range (ATR) with normalized ATR and volatility regime classification. Specific verb+resource, and no sibling tool duplicates this functionality, so it is well-differentiated.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when measuring volatility via Average True Range,' providing a clear context for use. However, no mention of when not to use or alternatives (e.g., other volatility indicators), so not a full 5.

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