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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses what happens after closing: 'n0brains resolves the outcome from real candles over the held window' including return %, R multiple, MAE/MFE, and whether stop/target traded. It also explains the default behavior of exit_price and the requirements for historical backfill, adding meaningful behavioral context.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the primary action first. It packs substantial information (modes, metrics, defaults) into a few sentences. The trailing 'Pro.' is somewhat cryptic and adds little, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description explains what the tool computes and returns (return %, R, MAE/MFE, stop/target trade), covering the essential behavioral outcomes. It does not explicitly describe the response format or error handling, but for a destructive close operation with clear modes, it is sufficiently complete.

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 description provides meaning for all four parameters: trade_id (source), exit_price (defaults to live price), note (exit reasoning), and closed_at (epoch seconds for historical backfill). Since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and usage.

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 clearly states the action ('Close a journal trade by trade_id'), specifies the resource ('journal trade'), and indicates where the trade_id comes from ('from log_trade or get_journal'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'void_trade' or 'amend_trade' by the verb 'close' and the detailed outcome resolution.

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 description gives explicit usage context: normal journal closing with optional exit_price and note, plus a separate historical backfill mode requiring closed_at and explicit exit_price. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the two-mode breakdown provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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