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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a pure calculation by using 'Calculate' and describing returned values, and it scopes the calculation to isolated-margin positions. It does not disclose assumptions, limitations, or confirm there are no side effects, but for a calculator tool the core behavior is clear.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and when to use, the second summarizes return values. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers invocation triggers, the output fields, and the isolated-margin scope, while the schema handles parameter details. It could note explicitly that this is a read-only calculation that does not consider actual account balance or cross-margin positions, but nothing essential is missing for calling the tool correctly.

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 80%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds only the output field 'distancePct' and does not enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Calculate the liquidation price for an isolated-margin futures position') and reinforces the purpose with user-intent triggers ('where will I get liquidated?'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as run_max_leverage and run_position_sizing, none of which target liquidation price.

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 states when to use the tool with quoted example queries, giving clear context for invocation. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related margin/leverage calculations, so it stops short of a full 5.

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