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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it aggregates journaled non-paper outcomes, includes a calibration score when expectations are journaled, and is historical performance data only. It also clarifies it is not a recommendation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two paragraphs and a final line, front-loading the purpose. It efficiently covers purpose, aggregation details, and workflow hint. No redundant sentences. It earns its place but could be slightly more compact by merging lines.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (presumably documenting return values), the description sufficiently covers input semantics, aggregation dimensions, and workflow guidance. It mentions key metrics and the calibration score. It does not mention data recency or pagination, but these might be in the output schema. Overall, it provides adequate context for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates somewhat by explaining that grouping can be by strategy_type, asset, decision_type, or hour_of_day over window_hours. It implicitly explains the 'group_by' and 'window_hours' parameters. However, it does not describe 'wallet_address' (though implied by 'your own') or 'caller_id'. The description adds meaning but leaves gaps.

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 tool retrieves the user's own realised performance, aggregated by various dimensions (strategy_type, asset, decision_type, hour_of_day) over a configurable window. It specifies the metrics included (win rate, P&L, fee drag, calibration score). The phrase 'free read' indicates no cost, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on personal performance data. This gives a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 description explicitly recommends using this tool in the 'ORIENT step' before sizing or creating strategies, providing a clear usage context. It also notes that the data is 'descriptive only, not a recommendation.' However, it does not mention when to avoid using this tool or list alternative tools for similar purposes, hence a 4.

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