Technical analysis summary of a stock or industry

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: a source restriction to Agah, the derivation of the action value from buy/sell counts, and a disclaimer that it is an automatic tally rather than advice. It does not cover latency, coverage gaps for symbols with insufficient history, or result shape, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by source/routing notes and then output semantics. Every sentence carries information, though the line-broken layout and the parenthetical enumerations are slightly denser than needed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly takes on the job of explaining the return value by defining the action scale (-2 to 2) and how it is derived. Combined with the source restriction and sibling routing for a 2-parameter read-only tool, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 both target and timeframe are already documented, including the enum meanings. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail for either parameter; its explanation of the action scale is about return values, not inputs. 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?

"Show Agah's technical-indicator summary (moving averages and oscillators vote, RSI, MACD and others) for a stock or industry" gives a specific verb, resource, and content list. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling br_scores, which only offers a coarse Buy/Neutral/Sell rating, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

It states sequencing ("Use it after br_stock") and a source constraint (Agah only, with br_scores named as the alternative for Mofid data). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the alternative routing is clear enough to choose correctly.

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