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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the 'withheld (null) below 20 decisive outcomes' rule, the per-engine breakdown, the cost model reference, and the exclusion of vetoed/scratched signals from the win rate. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what the numbers mean.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the headline content and packs in the key behavioral rules. It is somewhat long and runs together, but every clause adds information about what the ledger contains or how it is computed. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 read-only reporting tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the headline metrics, the null-withholding rule, per-engine rows, P&L averaging, and exclusions. It does not describe the exact response shape, but with no output schema and a simple parameter, an agent can infer the return is a summary object. The only minor gap is not stating the time window or data source, but that is not essential for invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, recent_limit, is fully documented in the schema with type, default, maximum, minimum, and a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already carries the full burden, so baseline 3 is 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 identifies the tool as a public ledger report with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('signal ledger'), and enumerates the exact contents: published count, matured decisive outcomes, wins/losses/win rate, per-engine rows, average net P&L, and recent settled outcomes. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting vetoed and scratched signals are excluded, which differentiates it from get_vetoed_signals and get_open_signals.

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 implies usage context: it is a read-only public ledger summary, and the exclusion of vetoed/scratched signals tells the agent when not to use it for those categories. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_vetoed_signals or get_open_signals, but the sibling list and the exclusion statement provide enough context for an agent to route correctly.

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