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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real value: results include close reason and a paper-trading flag, and the call is marked (cost: free), which matters for an agent budgeting calls. It does not describe ordering or pagination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One compact sentence preceded by a bracketed category tag; the scope and ID source are front-loaded and every clause carries distinct information. Nothing is redundant.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming two notable return fields and the zero cost. For a two-parameter read-only lookup this is close to sufficient; only ordering/time-range behavior and how results are paged beyond `limit` are left unstated.

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% (both strategyId and limit are documented with defaults), so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point because it clarifies that strategyId is a live-strategy ID sourced from `qd_strategies_trading`, disambiguating it from backtest strategy IDs elsewhere in the API.

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 concrete verb (查询/query) and resource (实盘策略的成交记录) with explicit scope: strategy-level, keyed by live strategy ID, and calls out the extra fields carried (平仓原因, 模拟盘标记). It is clearly distinct from account-level platform_trade_history, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you use it when you need trade fills for a live strategy, and the description helpfully tells you the ID comes from `qd_strategies_trading`. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to platform_trade_history / platform_strategy_positions for the alternative framing (account-level or open positions).

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