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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, the description adds context beyond them: the wrapper behavior (min_pnl=0.01), the caveat 'paper-trading data only', and a disclaimer. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful additional behavioral context, though it omits details like pagination which are likely covered by the output schema.

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 well-structured with clear labels (Purpose, Triggers, When to call, etc.) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each section earns its place, though the extensive trigger examples and disclaimer could be seen as slightly verbose. Overall, efficient and scannable.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage scenarios, prerequisites (none), next steps, caveats, parameter semantics, and limitations. Combined with the annotations and output schema, it is fully complete for this simple 2-parameter 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 0%, but the description compensates fully: it explains market_id values ('crypto, kr_stock, us_stock; aliases coin/kr/us accepted') and limit's meaning ('Max results (default 10)'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Winning paper trades only (P&L > 0)' and further clarifies it is a wrapper around get_trade_history(min_pnl=0.01). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_losing_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 triggers ('what worked?', 'show me the winners'), when to call ('success-pattern review'), and next steps ('analyze_trades for breakdowns'). It also identifies it as a wrapper around get_trade_history, implying when to use the alternative.

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