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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses governance semantics the agent cannot infer: that Tickwire enforces no trading rules while the owner's hook may allow/deny/hold each order, and that kill switches can exist on the key or the account. The untrusted_text prompt-injection warning is substantive safety context not present in any structured field.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded with the payoff (what is reported) before the caveats. The untrusted_text warning is slightly dense but earns its place as a security instruction; nothing is redundant filler.

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, so the description must carry the return semantics, and it does: it enumerates the fields, explains the enforcement model, and flags untrusted data. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The prose instead describes the shape and meaning of returned fields (read_only, kill switch, scope, hook behavior), which is useful even though argument semantics are not applicable.

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 names a specific resource (this agent key's current permissions) and enumerates exactly what it reports: read_only status, kill switch state, accounts in scope, and pre-trade hook review behavior. This clearly separates it from adjacent read tools like get_account_info or get_account_health.

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 gives an explicit usage cue — 'Check this before trading' — which is a clear when-to-use signal. It does not name alternative or exclusion conditions (e.g., which sibling to prefer when only account state is needed), so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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