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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists return fields (netYieldPct, grossProfit, etc.) which hints at the analysis nature. However, it does not disclose whether the tool performs any side effects, requires permissions, or has assumptions (e.g., no slippage). The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 three sentences: purpose, usage trigger, and return fields. It is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the most important information. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given no output schema, the description lists the return fields, which is helpful. It covers the core purpose, usage context, and returns. However, it could mention potential error conditions or limitations (e.g., not accounting for exchange-specific fees beyond transfer fee). Overall, it is complete enough for an analytical tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking parameters to the scenario (e.g., long exchange funding rate), but it doesn't provide details beyond what the schema already describes. No significant added meaning.

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 the tool performs 'Delta-neutral carry trade (funding arbitrage) analysis' and specifies the exact use case: 'Use when user asks 'is this carry trade worth it?' — long on exchange A, short on exchange B, collect the funding rate spread.' This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like workflow.run_funding_arbitrage and workflow.run_funding_breakeven.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool ('Use when user asks...') and describes the scenario (long/short on different exchanges). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools among the many siblings. The differentiation from similar tools like workflow.run_funding_arbitrage is implied but not explicit.

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