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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it calculates and returns R:R, position size, liquidation price, breakeven, P&L, and a verdict. No mention of side effects, but as a calculation tool, no destructive actions are expected.

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, front-loaded with purpose and key outputs. Every sentence is necessary and free of fluff, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential return values and verdict criteria. It omits parameter ranges or examples, but provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and results.

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 high (90-100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining outputs derived from parameters, but does not expand on individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

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 performs full risk:reward analysis, listing specific outputs (R:R ratio, position size, liquidation price, breakeven, P&L) and a verdict. It distinguishes itself as 'the single best tool' for trades with entry, stop, and target, differentiating from sibling tools.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'when user describes a trade with entry, stop, and target' and 'when user asks "is this trade worth taking?" or "what's my risk reward on this setup?"'. It implies alternatives exist but does not explicitly list when not to use.

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