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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool calculates a value and returns specific fields (maxLeverage, marginAtRisk), implying a read-only computation. It does not mention safety, permissions, or side effects, but the nature of a 'calculate' tool is transparent enough.

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 two sentences plus a 'Returns:' line, front-loaded with the main action. It is concise and contains no unnecessary information.

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 simple calculation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, inputs, and return fields. It could mention if it relies on real-time data or assumptions, but the provided inputs suggest a self-contained calculation. Overall, it is nearly complete.

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 description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It mentions parameters in the overall purpose but adds no detail beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 calculates maximum safe leverage using account size, drawdown, and volatility. It provides concrete example queries ('what's the max leverage I should use on BTC?') that differentiate it from sibling tools like liquidation safety or risk-reward analysis.

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 explicitly says 'Use when user asks...' and gives two examples, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools from the sibling list.

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