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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the empty-distribution caveat and scopes results to 'current paper positions'. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context without contradicting them.

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?

Uses clear labeled sections and front-loads the purpose. Slightly verbose due to exhaustive trigger examples and next-steps, but each section adds value.

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?

With one well-explained parameter, an output schema, and clear caveats/prereqs/next steps, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage and a bare string param. Description compensates by enumerating valid market IDs (crypto, kr_stock, us_stock) and accepted aliases (coin/kr/us), which is critical for correct invocation.

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?

Description opens with 'Per-strategy breakdown across current paper positions (count, avg P&L, win rate per strategy)' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_positions by focusing on aggregated strategy distribution.

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' context (diversification audit, per-strategy performance check) plus trigger phrases. It mentions prerequisites and next steps, but doesn't name alternatives like get_strategy_leaderboard, so it falls just 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.