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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the burden and does disclose the payload shape: 8 named published skills, the user's selected one, and the precise semantics of symbol_skills (symbols where the paper account converts a symbol verdict's entry event into an order). It omits permission/rate-limit behavior and does not explicitly state the call is side-effect free, though the 'get_' naming and read-only framing make that clear in practice.

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, front-loaded with the headline ('Trading skill catalog + currently active overlay'), then the detail on symbol_skills. The inline enumeration of all eight skill ids is slightly listy but earns its place as the actual return values an agent will see.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values and it does so concretely (named skills, active selection, symbol_skills semantics). It leaves the meaning of the individual skill profiles (conservative_v0 vs scalp_v0 etc.) unexplained and says nothing about staleness or account scoping, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description spends its space on outputs instead, which is the right allocation.

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 opens with a specific verb-like summary ('Trading skill catalog + currently active overlay for this user') and enumerates exactly what is returned, including the 8 skill ids and the symbol_skills list. An agent can distinguish this read-only catalog/overlay lookup from mutation siblings like decker.set_skill_overlay and decker.set_symbol_skill 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?

It implies when to use it (reading the user's skill catalog and active overlay) and explicitly routes mutation intent elsewhere, naming both decker.set_symbol_skill and the REST /auto-order-rules/symbol-skills endpoint for toggling symbol skills. It does not state exclusions for the skill overlay itself (i.e. which sibling sets that), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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