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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the output composition (grouped results plus risk matrix), but it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, describe date-range behavior, or mention any edge cases in grading/grouping.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence explains what the tool returns, and the second states the intended analytical purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter report tool, the description covers the purpose, output composition, grade range, and use case. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about exact return fields would help, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with both startDate and endDate documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already fully explains the two parameters.

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 the output: performance results grouped by setup grade, including the grade range (A+ to C) and the associated risk matrix. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the unique grouping by grade and inclusion of the risk matrix set it apart from tools like get_playbook_performance or get_symbol_breakdown.

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 provides an explicit use case: checking whether the sizing rules match reality by seeing whether the grades the trader sizes up on actually pay. It doesn't state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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