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 clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, rate limits, or prerequisites, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is stated first. It is efficient, though extremely brief given the tool's complexity.

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 20 parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, a one-sentence description is insufficient. The agent lacks information about expected return values, how parameters interact, and when this tool should be preferred over similar analytic siblings.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It does not: no required parameter, optional filter, or configuration field is mentioned. The sole sentence adds almost no parameter-level guidance beyond the schema fields themselves.

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 verb and resource: 'Attribute trade outcomes to entry/exit features, sessions, and MAE/MFE excursions.' It identifies the core function and mentions distinctive analysis dimensions that set it apart from siblings like analyze_losing_trades or analyze_risk_management, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analyze_* tools. The description implies a use case but does not provide selection criteria, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer relevance.

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