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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the numbers are computed server-side from the authoritative ledger, implying they are trustworthy and not client-derived. It does not state that the call is read-only and non-mutating (relevant given siblings like kill_switch and place_order), nor does it cover defaults, cost, or latency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the payload first and the provenance clause second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

The enumerated metrics effectively substitute for the missing output schema, which is a real strength. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, an agent still lacks the safety profile (is this read-only?) and the meaning of defaults for mode and window.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the two parameters — and it says nothing about mode or window. The enums are largely self-explanatory (paper/live, 7d/30d/90d/all), and with zero required parameters the caller can safely invoke it bare, which keeps this at a baseline 3 rather than lower. Still, it leaves the default scope (which mode, which window) undocumented.

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 the concrete artifacts returned — win rate, net PnL, fees, drawdown, Sharpe, equity curve — so an agent can tell this is the performance-analytics tool rather than a state tool like get_account or get_positions. The verb is implicit ('tear-sheet') rather than an explicit 'returns/computes', and no sibling is named for contrast, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_account, get_positions, or get_copy_status, and no guidance on choosing between paper/live or which window to request. The agent must infer usage entirely from the field list.

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