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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the data is recorded/snapshot-based rather than live valuations, which prevents misreading stale numbers as current. It stops short of describing sampling cadence or pagination/limit on the snapshot list.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the parameter contract, then the disambiguation. No restatement of the name or title and no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so listing the metric fields in prose is exactly the right compensation, and the lookback semantics plus the staleness caveat cover the remaining unknowns for a two-parameter read tool.

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 carries the burden and does: hoursAgo is given a concrete default (168 = 1 week) and a cap (720 = 30 days) that the schema only partially encodes (maximum, no default). deploymentId is left implicit, but its required/uuid nature is fully expressed in the schema itself.

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 ('Returns recorded performance snapshots for a live deployment's bot') and enumerates the metrics returned (total return, max drawdown, Sharpe ratio, portfolio value over time), so the agent knows exactly what this yields versus siblings like get_deployment_logs or get_portfolio_series.

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 routes the agent: 'For current account performance use show_bot_activity first', and adds the exclusion that this telemetry does not refresh broker valuations. Both the alternative and the condition selecting it are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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