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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds explicit behavioral detail beyond that: 'cannot place, close or modify orders, and cannot withdraw' and the connection requirement. This goes beyond merely restating the annotation, providing practical constraints an agent needs to know.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: usage scope, behavioral limitation, and prerequisite. No redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence earns 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers all necessary context: when to use, what it returns, limitations, and prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't—no missed opportunity since there's nothing to explain.

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 states the tool returns the user's own TraderSpy account information (balance, positions, PnL, paper-trading). It explicitly scopes to 'THEIR OWN' account, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_positions that are not account-specific. The verb 'get' plus the resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 first sentence gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use this when the user asks about THEIR OWN TraderSpy account.' It also notes read-only limitations and the prerequisite of a personal MCP connection. This clearly tells an agent when to invoke this tool vs alternatives, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools, the condition is sufficient.

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