multitf

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds default timeframes but does not disclose behavior like the nature of alignment scoring, output format, or data sources. It is adequate but not enriching beyond 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence lists defaults efficiently. No wasted words, though additional structure (e.g., bullet points for defaults) could improve readability.

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?

Despite an output schema existing (content unknown), the description lacks details about the return values, alignment scoring algorithm, supported symbols, or any constraints. For a tool with only 2 parameters, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage.

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 only mentions default timeframes, failing to explain the 'symbol' parameter or the meaning of the 'timeframes' parameter. The 'alignment scoring' concept is not linked to parameters, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 clearly states 'Multi-timeframe analysis with alignment scoring,' which is a specific verb-noun combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze' or 'score' by focusing on multi-timeframe and alignment. However, it lacks a precise definition of what 'alignment scoring' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., analyze, scan, score). The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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