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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: prices are real Deribit bid/ask, it is a paper account, and it reports only closed trades — that last point materially changes how an agent should interpret empty or small result sets.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the journal is and followed immediately by what it returns and then its limitation. The brand prefix is minor overhead but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description independently signals the shape of the response (per-strategy aggregates plus latest closed trades). With light parameters and full annotation coverage, the only real omission is how the optional filters alter results.

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 67% with asset and strategy documented in the schema, while limit is documented only by bounds and default. The description contributes nothing about filtering behavior — e.g. whether asset is required for meaningful stats or how the strategy substring matches. 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?

Specific verb-and-resource: a decision journal of options strategies tracked at real Deribit bid/ask prices, with per-strategy trade counts, win rate, average result and latest closed trades. An agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not name or contrast the closest sibling (hypothesis_ledger), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

"Use to show how rule-based options strategies actually performed" gives a clear selection context, and the closing line excludes a common wrong expectation (live entry signals and exact structures are unavailable). No explicit alternative tool is named, so this is strong context without full routing guidance.

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