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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: newest-first ordering, the P&L/tally payload, and the edge case that a reset write-off surfaces as sold with close_reason account_reset. It stops short of describing pagination or how limit interacts with the result set.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: payload and ordering first, scoping second, the reset-write-off caveat last. Every clause carries information, though the instrument_id mention is wedged into an already dense list.

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 an output schema present the return values need no further explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-required-param history reader this is nearly complete; only pagination behavior and the semantics of full versus 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 description coverage is 71%, in the mid band where the schema does most of the work. The description names window, since, until and run as scoping options but adds no syntax, format or precedence rules beyond what the schema already states, and never mentions full, limit or the deprecated month.

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 specific resource and scope: 'Settled and sold trades, newest first, with realized P&L, instrument_id and a win/loss/void tally.' That is enough to separate it from get_perp_history (perp-specific), get_orders (working orders) and get_track_record (aggregate stats) without opening any schema.

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?

'Scope with window, since, until or run' gives filtering mechanics but no guidance on when to choose this over get_perp_history, get_orders or get_track_record. Usage is implied by the resource description rather than stated as a when-to-use rule.

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