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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the input domain and the two accepted forms (number or constant name), which implies a read-only lookup with no side effects, but it never explicitly states that this is a non-mutating lookup nor describes the shape of the explanation returned. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and the resource, then packs the accepted input forms and examples into the parenthetical. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool this is nearly complete: it defines the input domain, both accepted forms, and examples. The only omission is any statement about what the returned explanation contains, which the absence of an output schema leaves unstated.

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 0%: the single 'code' parameter is only typed as integer-or-string with no description. The description compensates by explaining that the value is a return code or runtime error, that it can be given as a number (10016, 4014) or a constant name, which directly clarifies the anyOf integer/string union in the schema.

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 ('Explain') and a precisely bounded resource (MQL5 trade server return codes from MqlTradeResult.retcode and runtime errors from GetLastError()), with concrete example values. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools search_reference and get_signature, which retrieve documentation or signatures rather than interpreting a code.

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 implies the usage context well by naming the two sources of codes (MqlTradeResult.retcode, GetLastError()), so an agent can infer it should call this when it holds such a code. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no exclusions, so the guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (signature, section, doc link), which is useful, but says nothing about behavior when a name is ambiguous, missing, or has multiple overloads/signatures despite the parenthetical '(s)' hinting at multiplicity.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, with the examples placed at the end where they add clarity without delaying comprehension. No wasted words.

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 simple one-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the core is covered, but gaps remain around ambiguous lookups, multiple signatures, and not-found behavior — details an agent would want before invoking.

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 0% and the single 'name' parameter has no description, so the description is the only source of meaning — it compensates partially by giving examples ('CopyBuffer', 'OrderSend') that show the expected input form, but does not state whether the name must be exact, case-sensitive, or a full path.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('the exact MQL5 signature(s)') and even names the return payload (section and official doc link). It is distinguishable from sibling search_reference and explain_code by promising the exact signature rather than search results or narrative explanation, though it does not state that distinction explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the concrete examples ('CopyBuffer or OrderSend'), which signal this is a per-function lookup tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_reference or explain_code, or what to do for undocumented functions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the result shape (up to 10 matches with signatures and doc links), but says nothing about read-only nature, auth/network requirements, or freshness of the reference data. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences with no padding, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the return format and the usage cue. Efficient and easy to scan.

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 and no annotations, the description steps in to describe the return values (matches, signatures, doc links) and the intended use case. It is nearly complete for a simple 2-parameter search tool, missing only the 'limit' parameter's explanation.

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 must compensate. It clarifies the 'query' parameter semantics ('by name or section') and implies the result cap ('up to 10 matches'), but never explains the 'limit' parameter's role or acceptable range beyond what the schema's min/max already enforce.

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+resource (search the official MQL5 function reference) and scopes it to lookup 'by name or section.' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_signature or explain_code, but the search-and-return-matches framing is clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use: 'Use before writing MQL5 calls to avoid MQL4 syntax or invented functions.' That's a clear triggering context, though it names no alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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