chart_wait_ready

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, non-destructive, and non-idempotent. The description adds real value by defining the wait's scope and explicitly disclaiming a freshness guarantee, but it says nothing about what happens on timeout, what a successful wait returns, or that timeout_ms caps out at 30s. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One short sentence with the operation front-loaded and the caveat trailing. No waste, though it is dense enough that the caveat clause is easy to skim past; a slightly longer explicit contrast would cost little.

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?

For a five-parameter, zero-required wait tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope but not outcome semantics: an agent cannot tell whether this returns the observed state, a boolean, or throws on timeout. That is the main missing piece for a blocking call.

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 coverage is 80% and most params are well documented, so the baseline would be a 3. The description earns a bump by tying the wait semantics to the symbol and timeframe parameters, clarifying that those are expectations to be matched rather than values to set — a distinction the schema's one-line 'Expected symbol' only weakly conveys.

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?

States a specific verb (wait) and the exact conditions being waited on (symbol, timeframe, loaded bars), which separates it from chart_get_state (a point-in-time read) and from mutation tools. The clause 'does not assert strategy freshness' carves out a scope boundary, though it never names the sibling (strategy_wait) that presumably covers that case.

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 negative guidance ('does not assert strategy freshness') hints at when to prefer another tool, but it is never made explicit — no named alternative and no statement of when this tool must be called (e.g., after chart_set_symbol before reading data). Usage is only implied.

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