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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, it discloses non-obvious output behavior: ratio is null when stop equals entry and when validSetup is false, with a concrete example (a long with its stop above entry). That pre-empts a real misinterpretation an agent would otherwise make.

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 computed quantity, then the null-edge cases, then the trigger, then the return fields. Every sentence carries information; the "a raw number, not a verdict" clause usefully clarifies output semantics rather than padding.

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 supplies the return field list (riskPips, rewardPips, validSetup, ratio) and the conditions under which ratio is null. Combined with a fully documented input schema and safe-read annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 all five parameters are already documented (including the BASE/QUOTE convention and side enum). The description adds only conceptual reference to entry/stop/target and no new per-parameter syntax or constraint, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 computation (risk/reward distance in pips from entry/stop/target plus the reward/risk ratio) on a specific resource (forex setup). It is clearly separable from generic siblings like workflow.run_risk_reward and from adjacent forex tools such as run_forex_pnl or run_forex_pip_value.

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 an explicit trigger phrase ("Use when user asks 'what's my risk/reward on this setup?'") and a precondition (check validSetup before trusting the ratio). It does not name or exclude alternative siblings, so the when-not guidance is absent, but the context is clear.

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