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

Annotations only mark it read-only and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it operates on closed trades, excludes breakevens from win rate, defaults to all time for sample-size reasons, and requires signing in with a LuxAlgo OAuth account. These are not inferred from schema or 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?

Three sentences front-load the core output and metric list, then move to selection guidance, the alternative tool, and the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or restating of the title.

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 read-only analytics tool with no output schema, the description covers grouping dimensions, returned metrics, default and narrowed time windows, account scope, the closest sibling, and authentication needs. An agent can decide when to call it and what response shape to expect.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented including precedence and override behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the default all-time window and narrowing via range/from/to, but it doesn't add meaningfully new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 states exactly what the tool reports: closed trades in a window grouped nine ways, with a full list of metrics including net P&L and win rate. It also names journal_overview as the sibling holding headline numbers, which lets an agent distinguish the two without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly says this is the tool for 'what am I good or bad at' questions and routes headline-number questions to journal_overview. It also explains when the default all-time window makes sense and how to narrow with range/from/to, giving clear decision guidance.

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