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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, closed-world computation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned fields (breakevenPrice, totalFees), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not discuss fee defaults or numeric behavior, but that is largely delegated to the schema.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the usage rule, then the alternative routing, then the returns. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant with structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields. Combined with explicit scope boundaries and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly for a 6-parameter computation.

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 83%, so the schema already documents side, sizeBase, entryPrice, and the fee/contract-type parameters well. The description adds no syntax, units, or default information beyond what the schema provides ('covers all trading fees' only hints at the fee params). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('calculate the break-even exit price that covers all trading fees') and immediately constrains scope ('this alone, nothing else'). It also names the sibling tools it must not be confused with, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('user asks only what price do I need to just break even') and when-not-to-use ('if the user also gave a stop/target or wants a full trade-safety check'), naming workflow.run_risk_reward and workflow.run_pre_trade_check as the alternatives. Routing is fully specified.

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