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

The description discloses a side effect ('Changes the chart you are building') and a required follow-up action ('call chart_link'). Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which do not capture the chart modification. The description also mentions persistence ('so later analysis reads the same plan the user sees'), adding behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no waste. The primary action and target are front-loaded, followed by essential behavioral notes (persistence and follow-up). Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with 19 parameters and a side effect, the description covers the critical workflow (calculate, draw, then link), the persistence of the plan, and the chart-modifying nature. There is no output schema, but the description clarifies the outcome. The required parameters are covered by the schema, and the description adds the missing behavioral context. Complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 68%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description mentions 'optional sandbox program id' and 'targets' implicitly but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters but doesn't need to.

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 action ('Calculate a risk-first long/short position and draw the entry, stop and first target directly on the live chart') with a clear resource (the chart) and distinguishes itself from siblings like position_calculate and position_draw_on_chart by combining calculation and drawing. It is explicit and non-tautological.

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 provides clear usage context: it modifies the chart and instructs to 'call chart_link when you are done so the person can open it.' This is a sequencing guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the combined calculate+draw purpose implies a distinction from calculation-only or drawing-only tools.

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