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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: soft-delete semantics (retained and recoverable), removal from stats and default view, and the effect on CLOSED trades (removes outcome from calibration, disclosed in response). It also clarifies the destructiveHint by explaining the soft-delete nature, with no contradiction to idempotentHint or readOnlyHint.

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 yet information-dense, with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value (soft-delete behavior, closed-trade effect, usage guidance).

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 tool with only 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary dimensions: what, when, why, and behavioral outcomes. It even mentions the response disclosure. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide and execute the call correctly.

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 0%, so the description compensates by naming trade_id as the identifier and mentioning 'optional reason'. It contextualizes the reason by attaching example misuse cases (wrong asset, duplicate, fat-finger). However, it doesn't elaborate on reason format or trade_id sources, leaving a minor gap for a 2-parameter 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 opens with a specific verb 'Void' and a precise resource: 'a mis-logged journal trade by trade_id'. It enumerates concrete use cases (wrong asset, duplicate, fat-finger), making the tool's scope immediately clear and distinguishing it from siblings like 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 is provided: 'Use this for entries that never should have existed; use close_trade for real trades that ended.' This directly tells the agent when to choose void_trade over the alternative close_trade, satisfying the when/when-not criteria.

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