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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the colony is autonomous and paper-trading, some trades are mirrored with real money, and the output includes a paper ledger with average result and share of winners. The caveat 'Paper trades are measurements, never advice' is a useful safety disclosure beyond 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?

The description is composed of four focused sentences, with the primary use case front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes either scope, output details, or a clarifying caveat. It is slightly verbose but remains efficient and readable.

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 appropriately enumerates the main return contents: open positions, latest buys and sells with results and reasons, paper ledger metrics, and mirror records. It also covers optional token filtering and adds a disclaimer. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or the quote behavior in the description itself, but the schema covers quote and the scope is otherwise sufficiently complete.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the token parameter by mentioning filtering by symbol or address, and also references the quote concept indirectly through 'without running or paying for it' only in the schema rather than the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action (know what the SWOGE AI colony holds or did recently), a clear resource, and a concrete output list (positions, buys/sells, ledger, mirror record). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wallet_intel or swoge_economy, but the resource and scope are clear enough for an agent to recognize intent.

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?

The opening phrase 'Use this when you want to know what the SWOGE AI colony... holds or did recently' provides clear contextual guidance for when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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