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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: mirrors start at the NEXT fill, no backfill of past trades, sizing is based on the copy wallet's full value rather than allocation_usd, the $10 minimum bump skews risk for small wallets, and paper mode returns paper_copy_retired. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with the wallet prerequisite and start-point rule leading. The nested parentheticals accumulate (sizing formula, minimum bump, paper retirement) and make it slightly hard to scan, though nearly every clause 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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers the critical behaviors: funding prerequisite, sizing semantics, start timing, mode restrictions, and scope. It omits failure behavior if a follow already exists and says nothing about leader_id beyond the schema bounds.

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 coverage is 67%; the description adds real meaning by clarifying that allocation_usd is recorded only and does not drive mirror sizing, and by confirming mode='paper' is non-functional. leader_id is left to the schema, which documents its bounds but not its meaning, keeping this just short of a 5.

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 specific verb and resource: "Start copying a leader with real funds." It is immediately distinguishable from unfollow_leader, list_copy_leaders, and create_copy_wallet, and it names the mode split explicitly.

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 says what must happen first (create and fund the copy wallet via create_copy_wallet), what mode 'live' does, and that 'paper' is retired. It also names the required 'copy' scope, leaving little to inference.

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