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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that this is a mutation opening paper positions, that it auto-syncs manager moves on ~60s cycles, that it is hard-restricted to paper, and that a 100% allocation drains free cash and pauses the caller's own router deployment. That is exactly the kind of side-effect and permission context an agent needs before a state-changing call.

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 opening sentence front-loads purpose and the Args block is compact and scannable. There is minor redundancy in restating 'allocation_pct %' in the body before documenting it again in Args, but nothing is padded.

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 is simple (2 params, output schema present, no nesting) and the description covers purpose, constraints, timing, and parameter consequences. It omits what occurs if a copy is already active, but that is a small gap given the output schema handles return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: fund_id is identified as the fund to copy, and allocation_pct gets unit, range (1-100), default (100 = all-in), and the operational consequence of that default. Both parameters gain meaning beyond their bare integer/number schema types.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Start paper-copying a fund') plus the mechanism ('slider allocation'), which separates it from read-only siblings like get_fund_copy_state. It doesn't explicitly name the related stop_fund_copy/adjust_fund_copy tools, so sibling differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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 states the context for use (open paper positions mirroring a fund's lineup) and clear exclusions: live accounts are refused and copying your own fund is a conflict. It stops short of routing to an explicit alternative such as adjust_fund_copy or follow_fund when the agent wants a different mode.

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