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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond these by detailing the paper execution model, fee structure, slippage, and the fact that fills are rehearsals, not guarantees. This extensive disclosure of behavioral traits provides high transparency without contradicting 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 long (multiple sentences) and includes extensive detail about execution models and fees. While the first sentence front-loads the main purpose, the subsequent detail could be streamlined or moved to an output schema. The wordiness reduces conciseness, though the structure is logical.

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?

Despite its length, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, the paper-only nature, and the behavioral quirks of fills. An output schema exists (not shown), which reduces the need to document return values, but the description already does so. The only minor gap is a lack of guidance on usage versus siblings.

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%, and all three parameters (fiat, locale, agentTrace) are described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic meaning to the parameters; it focuses on the output and behavior. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns a 'lean, PII-free paper account summary' and enumerates the specific components (walletId, equity, PnL, orders, progression). This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get' tools like get_wallet or get_performance by focusing on the paper trading summary.

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 mentions 'Paper trading only' and 'Not financial advice,' providing some context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. For a tool that is one of many 'get' tools, more explicit guidance on choosing between get_portfolio and get_wallet or get_performance would improve the score.

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