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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the code is immutable, page size is not a history cap, paper data needs a separate permission, and saved code is user-authored content. That is substantive 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?

Four dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core capability is stated first and the constraints follow. Slightly compressed wording but every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers pagination, permissions, and content provenance. It is nearly complete for a read tool, with only the cursor naming mismatch and absence of alternative-tool routing as gaps.

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 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does explain the 'kind' variants, the pagination cursor concept, and clarifies that 'limit' is a page size rather than a history cap. Minor mismatch: it refers to 'next_cursor' while the actual parameter is 'cursor', and run_id is left unexplained, but overall it compensates well.

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 states a specific verb+resource: reading the tested code package, trades, or equity points for an owned run, and names the 'kind' variants explicitly. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_run_report, though it does not name that sibling as an alternative.

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?

It implies when to use the tool (reading code, paging trades/equity) and adds a real prerequisite (separate paper:read permission for paper data), but never states when to prefer it over get_run_report or other read tools. Guidance is present but inferred rather than explicit.

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