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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, closed-world read, and the description goes further by disclosing output semantics: ratio is a raw number, not a verdict, and is null in two distinct conditions (stop at entry, validSetup false). It does not state units beyond pips or formatting of the ratio.

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 computation, then the null-ratio caveats, then the return list. Dense but every clause carries information; only the trailing "Returns:" enumeration is somewhat redundant.

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 does the work of naming the return fields (riskPips, rewardPips, validSetup, ratio) and explaining the null cases. Adequate for a 5-param calculator; a few numeric-format details are the only missing piece.

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 only 20% (only pair is documented), so the description must carry the load. It usefully explains how stopPrice/targetPrice relate to entryPrice for a given side via the validSetup discussion, but gives no detail on price format, quote convention, or precision for the numeric fields.

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?

Names a precise verb+resource: computes risk/reward distance in pips from entry, stop and target, plus the ratio. The forex/pips framing implicitly separates it from the generic workflow.run_risk_reward sibling, but that differentiation is never made explicit.

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 a concrete routing cue ("what's my risk/reward on this setup?") and a strong precondition: check validSetup before trusting the ratio, since ratio is null when the stop sits at entry or the stop/target are on the wrong side. It stops short of naming alternative siblings for related questions (e.g. pip value, position sizing).

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