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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares determinism, states the per-execution price and the billing source (daily quota or USD balance), and specifies the error contract ('Malformed syntax returns an error JSON key with correction guidance'). Those are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs before calling a metered tool.

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?

Labeled sections (BEHAVIOR, PRICING, SYNTAX, RETURNS, USAGE, ERRORS) put the essential framing first and are scannable. The six example commands are individually informative but collectively borderline verbose; trimming to four plus a note on grammar would lose nothing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description steps in with the concrete return keys ('ideal_lot_coins', 'liquidation_price', 'effective_rr_ratio', etc.), plus error and pricing behavior. For a two-parameter, metered, DSL-driven tool, nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by supplying six worked command strings covering position sizing, liquidation, DCA, R:R, carry cost and ATR stops, which convey the DSL grammar that the schema alone only gestures at with one example. It does not fully formalize argument order or units, keeping it 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 ('deterministic mathematical calculation' of crypto futures risk management models) and immediately scopes out live data by naming which sibling handles it. The command examples make the resource concrete enough that an agent knows exactly what class of work belongs here.

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 routes work: 'use this tool exclusively for mathematical risk modeling and lot sizing', 'for live market scanning, use market_data', 'for setting execution triggers, use alert_manager'. It also gives a proactive follow-up ('route the generated stop-loss or liquidation prices into alert_manager'), which is rare and useful.

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