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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: rows come back newest-first, and the scope includes closed/fired stops, swaps and manual trades as 'the broker recorded it'. It stops short of describing pagination or result shape, but with annotations carrying safety this is solid.

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 front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by a compact invocation example. Every element earns its place, though the example is somewhat redundant given the fully documented schema.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description still usefully signals sorting order and that realised profit is included. Pagination, filtering by symbol, and the concise/detailed response_format are only covered by the schema, which is acceptable but leaves the description short of fully self-sufficient.

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 the schema already documents limit, since, until, cursor, symbol, account_id and response_format in detail. The description's inline example shows how account_id and since combine, which is mild added value, but nothing beyond the schema is explained. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (list an account's deal history) and goes further by characterizing the contents: stops that fired, swaps, manual trades, and realised profit. That content profile implicitly separates it from list_positions and list_orders, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Realised profit is here' hints that this is the right tool when the agent needs realised rather than unrealised P&L, but the description never states when to use it over list_positions or list_orders, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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