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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool queries closed positions, combines results into a combined PnL time-series, and is rate limited to 1 request per 30 seconds. 'Simulate' also implies non-destructive, read-only behavior, and the return behavior is stated.

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 compact and well organized: a one-sentence summary, a concise methodology/rate-limit note, and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place without padding or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: parameter structure, default, rate limit, and return summary. It does not explain what 'diagnosis' means or how historical period availability is determined, but those are secondary to calling it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must supply meaning for the parameters. It does so by defining roster as a list of {'bot_id': str, 'weight_pct': float} and initial_capital as starting capital with a default of 10000. It could add constraints about weight ranges or required fields, but it compensates well for the schema's lack of detail.

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: 'Simulate how a roster of bots would have performed historically.' It clearly separates this from siblings like get_fund_performance by emphasizing historical simulation of a custom weighted roster rather than live/current performance. The methodology sentence further pins down what the tool does.

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 clear context: use this when you want a historical, weighted simulation of multiple bots' closed positions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the use case is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when to select it.

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