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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it states the tool is 'FREE, no key' (no auth requirement), discloses the rounding behavior ('size rounded down to your lot step'), notes the optional cap, and adds an 'Informational only' caveat. It does not explicitly state that the tool is side-effect free/pure, but the calculator framing makes that clear.

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 with the most decision-relevant fact ('FREE, no key') and then a dense but compact input->output mapping with no wasted sentences. The single run-on sentence with arrow notation is slightly dense but every clause 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description compensates by naming the return values (risk amount, size, actual risk). For a 6-parameter compute tool this is nearly complete; only minor edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid inputs) is left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing how the inputs combine into outputs ('-> risk amount, size rounded down to your lot step (optional max size cap) and actual risk'), clarifying the lot_step/max_size interplay beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Position-size / risk calculator') and spells out the exact input->output transformation, so an agent immediately knows what it computes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like 'calculate' or 'unit_convert', which is the only thing that keeps it from a 5.

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 by the domain ('account size, risk %, stop distance and point value -> ...'). There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to the alternative 'calculate' or 'prop_firm_rules' tools. The 'Informational only, not financial advice' line is a disclaimer, not usage routing.

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