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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Creates nothing and moves nothing' is partly redundant. Still, the description adds real behavioral detail the annotations cannot: it enumerates what gets validated (model liveness, sizing kind, caps) and that it computes a mirror size at a given balance.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('Quote following a trading model'), followed by one dense sentence and a short safety clause. Every clause carries information; the only mild cost is that the middle sentence is a long comma-chained run-on.

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 still conveys the essential return concept ('shows what one mirror would be at the given balance') and the validation scope. For a 4-param, nested-object read tool it is close to complete, though the exact shape of the returned quote is not spelled out.

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% but the schema descriptions are only raw JSON examples. The prose adds genuine meaning by naming the sizing modes (fixed_notional usd vs proportional bps of balance) and each cap field (max_notional_usd, max_open_positions, max_daily_loss_usd, markets), clarifying the nested objects.

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: 'Quote following a trading model', and elaborates that it validates liveness, sizing, and caps and previews a mirror. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling strategy_quote, leaving the agent to infer the strategy-vs-model split.

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 only implied: the phrase 'Creates nothing and moves nothing' signals this is a pre-flight/dry-run check before an actual follow action. No explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative among the many siblings, and no prerequisites are stated.

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