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

Annotations cover the mutation/non-idempotent/open-world profile, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: that this is a recurring scheduled process whose every cycle consumes points (metered by model tier), and that the Decision agent can manage a paper position. The recurring cost is a genuine behavioral disclosure.

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 well with the core action in the first clause, but the closing 'Uses points on every cycle. (uses points, metered on the models used like the website)' is redundant, restating the cost point twice in a garbled parenthetical.

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 complex 11-param mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, it covers scheduling, cost, and where events land, but omits what the call returns (e.g., an autopilot id) and any auth/plan requirements, leaving some gaps for the agent to fill.

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 11 parameters in detail (enums for tier/asset/agents, timeframe lists, webhook shape). The description adds little parameter-specific syntax beyond naming 'symbol' and the paper-position behavior; baseline 3 applies 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 and resource: 'Run the four live agents on a symbol on a schedule' plus optional Decision-agent paper position management. Clear what it does, but does not distinguish itself from confusingly similar siblings like start_autopilot and run_autopilot_agent.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description conveys the scenario (scheduled agent runs) and points to get_autopilot_events for the resulting log. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing away from the near-identical start_autopilot sibling.

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