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

Discloses soft-delete behavior: 'removed from your stats and the default journal view but retained and recoverable (get_journal status='void')'. Also reveals that voiding a CLOSED trade removes its outcome from calibration. These details go beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations, explaining the actual consequences.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then behavioral notes and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, usage criteria, side effects, recovery path, and response disclosure ('disclosed in the response'). For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, this is comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining trade_id identifies the mis-logged journal trade and that reason is optional. However, it doesn't elaborate on reason semantics beyond 'optional reason', which is adequate for this simple tool.

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 states a specific action: 'Void a mis-logged journal trade by trade_id' with examples like 'wrong asset, duplicate, fat-finger'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by contrasting with close_trade.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this for entries that never should have existed; use close_trade for real trades that ended.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over the close_trade alternative.

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