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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds valuable behavioral details: resolved outcomes when the horizon passes, stop-touch handling, free_checks_remaining_today, and that it mirrors REST /checks/history limited to the last 50 records. No contradictions with annotations.

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 but slightly cluttered with multiple parentheticals and asides (e.g., 'RECEIPTS — your own', 'the journal covers trades you actually took'). Still, every sentence adds useful information, and the core message is front-loaded.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's function, scope (last 50), personal calibration aspect, free tier behavior, and the distinction from journal. It is self-sufficient and addresses the tool's life cycle and limitations.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is effectively 100% since there are no properties, and the description does not need to elaborate parameter semantics. It correctly omits parameter details.

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 tool returns the user's past check_trade assessments with resolved outcomes, grades, and side-adjusted results. It also explicitly contrasts with get_journal ('the journal covers trades you actually took'), distinguishing it from a closely related sibling tool.

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 clear context: this is for 'CHECKS you asked for' and implies using get_journal for actual trade logs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a when-not-to-use statement, but the journal distinction serves as a usable comparator.

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