Signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the full strategy analysis is intentionally omitted from responses and that pagination is supported via limit/offset. This is useful and non-contradictory.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The purpose and definition are front-loaded, followed by a concise list of filtering/pagination capabilities and a clear pointer to the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the 9 optional parameters, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains what signals are, how to constrain results, how to page, and where to get the omitted full analysis. An agent can invoke this correctly without missing critical context.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description's mention of filtering by 'symbol, strategy, catalyst and time range' is a helpful grouping but does not add material new meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('strategy signals'), and defines what a signal is ('a strategy's take on a security, triggered by a catalyst'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling signal_detail by stating that the full analysis is omitted here, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly states the scope of this tool (querying signals with filters and pagination) and provides an explicit alternative: 'fetch it with signal_detail' when the full analysis is needed. This tells the agent when to use this tool vs. a specific sibling.

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