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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing downsampling and the rationale for the small default, but it says nothing about data granularity, what happens with an invalid/unknown runId, or the shape of returned points.

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, front-loaded with the data shape and then the sizing constraint. The second sentence justifies the default rather than stating behavior, but it is short and informative enough to earn 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?

A read-only two-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description should describe what a curve sample looks like. It covers the sampling cap but leaves the return structure and the runId contract unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains maxPoints well (downsampling cap, deliberately small default) but never explains runId, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific resource and shape: account equity over time for a run, downsampled to maxPoints. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not differentiate itself from adjacent read tools like get_trades, get_run, or get_forward_result.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_trades, get_run, or get_forward_result, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a completed run. The only usage-adjacent content is about response sizing, not tool selection.

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