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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description reinforces this with 'No account access or order execution' — a meaningful safety boundary. It also discloses output artifacts beyond the annotation set (editable link, share page, PNG), though the exists-yet output schema already covers much of the return surface.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by inputs, outputs, and the safety boundary; every clause carries content. The telegraphic 'balances/deposits in USD, drawdown and monthly return in percent' phrasing is dense enough to be slightly ambiguous, which keeps it from a 5.

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 10 optional parameters, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema present, the definition only needs to convey unit conventions, scope, and the non-trading boundary — and it does all three. The scenario modes and how they interact with loss/losses/current are left entirely to the schema, a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents every parameter, including units and ranges; baseline 3 applies. The description restates unit conventions (USD, percent, whole months) but adds no format, default rationale, or interaction details beyond what the input schema already gives.

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 names a specific resource (drawdown recovery calculation) and enumerates the input dimensions it works on — balances/deposits, drawdown, monthly return, target horizon. That is clearly distinct from sibling calculators like compound_interest or dca_backtest, but no sibling is named or contrasted, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the scenario enum values (drawdown/balance/streak) and the recovery framing suggest when the tool applies, and the 'No account access or order execution' line sets a scope boundary. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over compound_interest or dca_backtest, nor any prerequisite guidance.

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