Preflight a trade-review chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses non-destructive behavior (no render quota consumption) but omits details on what validation entails, failure behavior, or auth requirements. Minimal but adequate.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states action and benefit, second gives usage instruction. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose and usage but lacks output behavior (e.g., what validation results look like) and does not elaborate on the nested object parameter's structure beyond what schema provides. Adequate for a preflight tool but missing completeness for a parameter with additionalProperties.

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 100% with a generic parameter description. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the 'request' parameter; it only restates the validation action. 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 clearly identifies the tool as a preflight validation step for broker/exchange fills and K-line data, explicitly stating it does not consume render quota. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool klinepic_create_review_chart which presumably renders.

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 instructs 'Call this before rendering', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not state when not to use, but the purpose and sibling context imply alternatives.

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