get_ichimoku

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not declare side effects, but for a calculation tool this is less critical. It transparently explains the output details, including the unusual 'future cloud prediction for displacement period' behavior, which goes beyond a simple 'calculate' statement. However, it omits any note about being read-only, though that is inferred from the context.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a list of returned components. No redundant information; 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It names all output components and even the future prediction feature. It does not specify return formats, but the output schema is absent, and the description gives a clear picture of what is returned. Slight gap: it doesn't mention how the cloud direction is represented, but the overall completeness is high.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight context by mentioning that displacement relates to future cloud prediction, but it does not explain how the other parameters affect the output. The schema already documents each parameter clearly, so the description adds marginal value.

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 the tool calculates the Ichimoku chart for a stock and lists the specific components (conversion line, base line, leading spans, lagging span, cloud direction, and future cloud prediction). This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling technical indicators like RSI, MACD, and Bollinger Bands.

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 usage when an agent needs Ichimoku data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over other indicators or provide exclusion criteria. It provides no alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, so it meets only the 'implied usage' level.

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