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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world. The description adds context beyond that: no equity/risk input, no sizing, no order placement, and the important default that without timestamps the box spans recent closed candles rather than future bars or an executed trade. It stops short of saying what happens on repeated calls (e.g. duplicate boxes accumulating).

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 identity and primary action, then alternatives, then the default-time semantics, then follow-up steps. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information, though the final sentence is doing a lot of work in one clause.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, safety-adjacent behavior, default time semantics and the workflow handoff. The remaining gap is which optional parameters (symbol, timeframe) need to be supplied versus defaulted.

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 only 33%, and side/symbol/timeframe have no descriptions anywhere. The description partially compensates by explaining the omitted-timestamp behavior and default barsWide span, but it does not clarify symbol or timeframe handling.

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 verb+resource ('long/short position drawing tool') and enumerates what gets drawn (entry, stop, target box). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling position_plan_on_chart, so an agent can separate the two without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not-and-alternative: use position_plan_on_chart only when quantity and risk calculations are also wanted. It also names the follow-up tools (chart_link, or analysis_prepare for a sharing draft needing human review), which is real routing information.

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