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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a strong job: it explains aggregation granularity, grouping by playbook, planned vs assigned playbooks, the 92-day range limit, and the non-obvious rule that options belong to the symbol-day of their underlying. It does not cover response ordering or pagination behavior, but the key behavioral quirks are disclosed.

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?

Three dense sentences with no repetition or filler; each sentence adds distinct value: resource definition, content, and usage constraints. The structure is logical and front-loads the core unit before moving to filters and edge-case semantics.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important selection and invocation context: what each review entry contains, the review scores, mistakes, reflection, date range, and option handling. It is slightly light on default sorting/return shape, but limit and date semantics are already in the schema.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents startDate, endDate, limit, symbol, and playbookId. The description adds useful context around playbookId and grouping, but does not materially extend what the parameter descriptions already state.

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 and what it returns: 'One entry per symbol the trader traded on each day,' followed by the entry's contents. It also distinguishes the tool from trade-level views with 'setup by setup rather than trade by trade,' making it clearly different from siblings like get_trades.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it to judge a playbook, or a session, setup by setup rather than trade by trade.' It also gives filtering guidance via symbol or playbookId, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools for cases where this tool would not apply.

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