signals

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that the feed is regenerated by every data sync, that refresh=True triggers a fresh detection run, and that low-confidence signals backtest no better than the naive view — a genuinely useful quality caveat. It stops short of saying what a refresh costs or whether it mutates stored state.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then signal kinds, then output fields, then parameters — a deliberate most-to-least-important ordering. Dense but every fragment adds information; no filler sentences.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (direction, confidence, reasons, evidence, first_seen_et, is_new, owner, action hint), covering the return contract. The two undocumented parameters and the absence of explicit sibling routing are the only real gaps for a 6-parameter tool.

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%, so the description carries the load and mostly succeeds: it defines scope values (all | mine | others | fa), kind as comma-separated kinds, refresh semantics, and the min_confidence scale plus its default source. Only 'top' and 'new_only' go unexplained in either the schema or the description.

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 resource ('Early-signal feed') and enumerates exactly what it carries (buy_low/sell_high, role_change, opportunity, espn_revision) with the refresh cadence. An agent can tell it is a detection/signal feed rather than a raw data tool, though it never distinguishes itself from the overlapping sibling buy_sell or signal_grades.

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 through the scope values and the 'refresh=True re-runs detection' note, and the min_confidence caveat hints when low-confidence output is not worth reading. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance, so the agent must infer the routing from the sibling list.

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