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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds context by mentioning it shares the stop-loss executor mechanics, letting the agent infer expected behavior from the sibling. Yet it does not disclose specific side effects, permission requirements, or the nature of the 'monitor' lifecycle, so it only partially supplements the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful cross-reference to a sibling tool and a concise constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has 15 parameters and a complex creation operation, but the description only touches on a handful of parameters and does not explain what the monitor does beyond 'downside protection.' The output schema is present, so return values are covered, but the behavioral details and parameter semantics are too incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only mentions three parameters (stop_loss_pct, take_profit_pct, trailing) and a required at-least-one rule. The other 12 parameters remain unexplained, providing minimal semantic value beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a downside-protection monitor on a held position.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling strategy_stoploss_create by noting it is 'framed as a pure downside guard,' making the tool's purpose clear and unique.

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 gives context on when to use this tool by explicitly referencing strategy_stoploss_create as sharing identical mechanics, implying a relationship and differentiation. It also provides a critical usage rule: at least one of stop_loss_pct, take_profit_pct, or trailing must be set. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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