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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'no HMAC required, no orders, no wallet/account access' and 'Not trading advice.' This reassures the agent about side effects and trust level without conflicting with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and outputs, followed by safety context. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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, but the description states the two possible outputs (HOLD or EXIT_TIMEOUT). It covers the core logic and safety. However, it omits the role of optional parameters and the exact exit-condition thresholds, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 compensate. It names 'seconds_open' and 'max favorable excursion' (mfe_bps) as inputs, but does not explain the optional timeout_sec and mfe_threshold_bps parameters, their units, or how they affect the calculation. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema property names.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Advisory exit check for stagnant positions: returns HOLD or EXIT_TIMEOUT from seconds_open and max favorable excursion.' It uses a specific verb (returns) and names the resource (stagnant positions) and outputs, distinguishing it from sibling run tools.

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 usage for stagnant positions ('Advisory exit check for stagnant positions') and clarifies safe read-only use ('Pure calculation, DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required, no orders, no wallet/account access'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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