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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, lowering the burden. The description adds valuable context: data is paper-trading only, and the loss threshold is defined. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but the output schema exists and the safety profile is covered by 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?

Well-structured with labeled sections and front-loaded purpose. The trigger examples and disclaimer are somewhat verbose, but each section contributes to usability, so it remains efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, triggers, when to call, prerequisites, next steps, caveats, and parameter explanations. Output schema eliminates the need for return-value details. For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is fully complete and contextually rich.

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 properties have no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates: explains market_id accepts crypto/kr_stock/us_stock with aliases, and limit has a default of 10. This goes far beyond the bare schema and tells the agent exactly what values are valid.

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?

Clearly states it returns losing paper trades only (P&L < 0), and identifies as a convenience wrapper around get_trade_history(max_pnl=-0.01). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_winning_trades and get_trade_history.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to call: failure-pattern review' and lists example trigger phrases. The wrapper mention points to get_trade_history as a more flexible alternative, and next steps suggest analyze_trades, giving clear context on when and how to use.

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