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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond that: it reads the broker directly through the broker-data Lambda and never returns account numbers, broker tokens, or runtime secret ids, plus the no-aggregation rule. These are non-obvious data-safety and scoping traits an agent could not infer from the annotation.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the read scope followed by the show_bot_activity routing rule, which is the right order. It runs long, with mild redundancy between the 'after that report, not a preflight' sentence and the 'standalone account questions still use this tool normally' sentence.

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?

Without an output schema, the description still names what comes back (cash, buying power, account value) and covers ordering, safety, and failure-mode usage. The only material gap is the unexplained brokerProvider filter, which matters for a tool whose sibling set includes multiple broker integrations.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It explains brokerCredentialId thoroughly (resolve one exact active saved connection and reuse it for quote and place_trade), but brokerProvider is never mentioned, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 concrete read operation with its payload: current cash, buying power, and account value from the signed-in user's saved broker connection. It explicitly separates itself from show_bot_activity, but the near-identically named sibling broker_snapshots is never addressed, leaving one plausible confusion unresolved.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use show_bot_activity first for a named bot's performance, use this tool only after that report for a failed or stale read, never as a preflight, and use it normally for standalone account questions. It also specifies the required sequence for trade sizing (resolve one exact active connection, pass brokerCredentialId, reuse for quote and place_trade) and prohibits aggregating balances across accounts.

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