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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the computed outputs and the verdict grading scheme (strong 3:1+ / good 2:1+ / marginal / poor). It does not cover edge cases like invalid stop/target geometry, but the behavioral context is solid.

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-loaded with the core operation, then inputs, then outputs, then the sibling disambiguation and trigger phrases. It is on the long side, but every sentence carries routing or output information, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must summarize returns; it does so by naming the verdict and computed metrics. For an 11-parameter calculation tool this is nearly complete, with only marginal detail (e.g., fee/MMR defaults) relying on the schema.

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 91%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description reinforces that entry, stop, AND target are all required, but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource with scope: 'Full risk:reward analysis: takes a trade with entry, stop, AND target (all three).' It enumerates the outputs (R:R ratio, position size, liquidation price, breakeven, P&L at stop/target) and names the sibling workflow.run_pre_trade_check, so an agent can distinguish it from alternatives without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('see workflow.run_pre_trade_check') and the condition that selects it (live exchange/symbol including funding cost, overall setup safety rather than just R:R). It also gives concrete invocation triggers ('is this trade worth taking?', 'what's my risk reward on this setup?'). Nothing is left to inference.

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