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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what the response contains — a product overview covering the AI trader's mechanics, safety rules, usage modes, and pricing — which tells the agent this is a static documentation fetch rather than live account data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the entity and packs the content list into one clause. No preamble, no filler, and every item in the list corresponds to information the agent might need.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete — it tells the agent exactly what topics come back. The only gap is routing guidance against the three siblings, which matters here because two of them (get_started, trading_lesson) are also informational.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description suggests configuration or filtering, which correctly matches an empty schema with additionalProperties: false.

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 names the resource (Unitrader) and enumerates the specific content the tool returns: what it is, how the AI trader operates on a user's own brokerage account, safety rules, usage modes, and pricing. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from ai_activity_today and trading_lesson, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_started, the closest informational sibling.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_started, trading_lesson, or ai_activity_today. 'The three ways to use it' refers to the product's usage modes, not the tool's invocation context, so the agent is left to infer that this is the general overview/orientation call.

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