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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (maxLeverage, marginAtRisk), which is useful since no output schema exists, but discloses nothing about assumptions, units, or edge-case behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose, usage triggers, and return values, with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler, though the return-value sentence could arguably be trimmed for a read-only calculator.

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?

For a deterministic four-parameter calculator with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, triggers, and result fields. Missing only minor detail like the role of the optional mmr parameter and unit conventions.

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 four parameters including the optional mmr default are documented in the schema. The description restates the three required inputs but adds no format, unit, or default guidance beyond what the schema already supplies, 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 verb and resource: 'Calculate the maximum safe leverage,' and names the three driving inputs (account size, max drawdown, daily volatility). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_liquidation_safety or run_position_sizing, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 concrete trigger phrasings ('what's the max leverage I should use on BTC?') that map user intent directly to the tool, which is strong positive guidance. It lacks any when-not condition or pointer to the sibling it should be preferred over, so it stops short of a 5.

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