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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It lists output fields (per-level pnl, weightedAvgExitPrice, totalRoi) and implies a read-only planning operation, but it lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a practical example and clear return list. No extraneous words or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and parameter usage through an example. However, it lacks mention of error conditions, edge cases, or limits on number of exits beyond what schema provides.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the description adds value by providing a usage example that clarifies the 'exits' parameter structure (array of price and pct objects). This compensates for the schema's missing descriptions on optional fee parameters and reinforces parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly defines the tool as a scale-out planner computing P&L, ROI, and cumulative P&L for each partial exit level. Includes a concrete example showing multiple exit targets, which distinguishes it from related sibling tools like workflow.run_exit_target or workflow.run_pnl_planning.

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 states when to use ('Use when user wants to take profit at multiple targets'). However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly contrast with alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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