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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description usefully adds ordering, page size, and the pagination mechanism, though it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or response details.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with scope and ordering, and the pagination instruction is direct. There is no filler or repetition.

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 five-parameter read-only listing tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: scope, ordering, page size, and pagination. It could still mention the `siguiente` return token more explicitly or differentiate from `tradeaudit_summary`, but it is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description only restates the pagination meaning of `antes`, adding little beyond the schema, which makes the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 a specific resource and scope: the key owner's own closed trades, returned newest first in pages of 50. It is distinguishable from a generic trades tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tradeaudit_summary.

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?

It gives pagination guidance via `antes` and the previous response's `siguiente`, but does not say when to use this tool versus `tradeaudit_summary` or other siblings. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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