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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's safety burden is light, but it adds real operational context: broker-dependent availability, a propagation delay (results update a few minutes after close), and the semantics of onlyMine. It does not describe pagination or return shape constraints, but the added traits are substantive.

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?

Front-loads what is returned, then usage, then the onlyMine hint, then availability/latency caveats. Dense but well ordered; the return-value enumeration is long yet earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the summary block, plus broker availability and refresh latency. An agent has everything needed to call and to interpret the result.

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 days/limit/symbol/onlyMine are already documented in the schema. The description restates onlyMine's meaning (already in the schema) and adds no format or default detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a precise verb+resource (results of CLOSED trades executed through TraderWAI) and enumerates the returned fields (entry/exit price, close reason, realized P/L in money and R, summary). This clearly distinguishes it from get_positions (open) and execute_trade siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: review performance, learn from past trades, report results to the user. It also points to get_broker_accounts for availability. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for related queries, so it is clear but not fully routing-aware.

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