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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false (mutable) and openWorldHint=false; the description carries meaningful extra behavioral weight: it does NOT execute orders, its side effects are limited to gating the Telegram entry cron (not the full pipeline), and it discloses trip thresholds (3 hits or $60) for daily-loss. This materially clarifies the safety/side-effect profile beyond the sparse annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

A single dense sentence packs in the purpose, the two breaker states with thresholds, the no-order-execution guarantee, the three action options, and the scope exclusion. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a mutating control tool with two breaker states and three actions, the description covers the state model, trip thresholds, safety boundary (no order execution), and scope restriction. With no output schema present, the main gap is that the return shape/format of the 'get' action is not described — an agent cannot predict what a successful read returns. The conditional requirement of 'active' for set_macro is covered by the schema, so the overall picture is nearly complete.

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% — each parameter already has a description in the schema (get default, set_macro, reset_daily; active required for set_macro; reason optional). The description restates the action enum and the default value but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs (Baca/ubah = read/modify) against a specific resource (circuit breaker KV) and names the two breaker types (daily-loss, macro-risk) with their trip conditions. It further differentiates itself by stating it does not execute orders and explicitly distinguishes its scope from the sibling whalescope_full_pipeline, so an agent can clearly tell it apart from the many siblings.

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?

The description provides clear context: it is an ops control tool that only gates the Telegram TRADE/entry cron and NOT whalescope_full_pipeline on-demand — an explicit exclusion of an alternative. It also states 'Tidak mengeksekusi order' to distinguish it from trading tools, and explains when each action applies (get default, set_macro pause/resume, reset_daily zeroing daily-loss). It stops short of fully mapping every scenario to an alternative tool, but the context is strong.

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