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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is a heuristic research signal, not investment advice; all thresholds are tunable parameters; and the per-symbol return fields are enumerated. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three sentences with zero filler: strategy conditions, output format, tunability, and disclaimer all fit naturally. The core action is front-loaded, and every sentence carries distinctive information. This is appropriately dense rather than bloated.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description lists the exact return fields and explains the strategy criteria, threshold tunability, and heuristic nature. All six parameters are documented in the input schema, and the intended ticker scope (US, daily bars) is explicit. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 because the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds extra meaning by explicitly labeling rsi_threshold, ma_period, proximity_pct, and lookback_days as tunable thresholds and explaining that calibration is achieved through parameter changes. This links the parameters directly to the strategy logic beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific action ('Screen one or more US tickers') and a clearly defined resource/strategy: a mean-reversion 'bounce' setup with explicit conditions (near support/MA, RSI oversold and turning up, bullish latest candle, volume at/above average). It also specifies the exact output shape, which leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does. The definition is distinctive enough to be separated from siblings like candlestick_signals or support_resistance_levels without reading their schemas.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when screening US tickers for daily-bar mean-reversion bounce setups. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the strategy-specific wording makes the intended use obvious. It stops short of a 5 because no explicit 'use X instead when...' guidance is provided.

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