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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, meaning this is not a pure read operation. The description does not explain what side effects occur (e.g., whether a rehearsal record is written, what state changes), nor does it cover auth needs or rate limits. It only describes the computation and default net-of-fees/last-week behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main action and packs useful details (fees, outputs, usage, caution) into three sentences. It is dense but not wasteful.

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?

It covers purpose, usage, expected outputs (trade count, R, random null comparison), and a caution about interpretation. Missing only behavioral side effects and any auth/rate-limit context, given no output schema and non-read-only annotation.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the default time range ('the last week by default'), which is not a parameter but contextual behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Run) and resource (forged cubicle.script over the real tape with the reference runner), and lists outputs. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'script_rehearse' or 'script_validate', which likely have overlapping purpose.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition: 'Call it after a forge when the trader wants to know whether the rule actually fires.' It also includes a caution ('never a forecast'), but does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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