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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: requires no API key, spends no credits, returns instructions, and does not send requests on the user's behalf. This goes beyond annotations to clarify side effects and prerequisites.

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 compact yet thorough. Each sentence delivers a distinct fact: purpose, prerequisite, use cases, coverage, return type, and explicit non-actions. No redundancy and well-organized for quick agent comprehension.

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 parameterless informational tool, the description covers all essential aspects: when to call it, what it returns, and what it does not do. Combined with the rich annotations, nothing is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to add. With 0 params the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately spends no space on parameter details.

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 explains how to obtain a cogDepot API key and become able to trade. It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly positioning itself as the onboarding/instruction tool, even noting it does not create an account.

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 specifies when to use: when the user has no account or when another tool reports a missing/unfunded key. It also clarifies what the tool does not do, which prevents misuse and guides correct selection.

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