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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what is returned (binding limit, breach flags) and that the model matches the FloorGuard calculator, but it omits any auth or rate-limit context. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the tool's output and scope. Every clause carries information; only the trailing API cross-reference is borderline dispensable.

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, but the description enumerates the key return elements (remaining room, binding limit, breach flags), which is the essential return information. Given the fully documented schema and safety annotations, this is close to complete for a stateless 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters with defaults and units. The description adds nothing parameter-level beyond 'same inputs as GET /api/v1/check', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 computed resource: 'remaining daily-loss and max-drawdown room in dollars for an account', plus the binding limit and breach flags. This is clearly distinct from get_rules and list_firms, though it never names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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 tool's purpose (checking drawdown headroom); there is no explicit 'use this when X, use get_rules when Y' routing. The cross-reference to GET /api/v1/check gives some orientation but no when/when-not guidance.

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