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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement ('Requires an InsideREU API key') and implies a mutation, but says nothing about reversibility, whether the trade leaves the tracked list after closing, whether closing twice errors, or what the call returns.

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 short sentences, zero filler: action and scope first, identification method second, prerequisite third. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 50% schema coverage, the description covers identification and auth but leaves lifecycle questions unanswered — what state the trade ends in, currency handling, and error behavior on unknown ticker or duplicate close.

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 50% (ticker and company_name are undocumented in the schema). The description compensates by clarifying that trade_id, ticker, and company_name are alternative identifiers for the same trade — OR semantics the schema's flat optional-string list does not convey.

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 — 'Record the exit of one of YOUR tracked trades (sold / took profit)' — which clearly distinguishes it from track_trade (entry) and list_my_trades (read). It does not, however, name the sibling tools explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The possessive 'YOUR tracked trades' implies a prerequisite (the trade must already exist via track_trade) and the description offers alternative identification paths. But it never states when to prefer this over track_trade or list_my_trades, and no exclusions (e.g., 'do not use to open positions') are given.

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