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

Annotations already declare the safe/idempotent read profile, so the description instead contributes the untrusted_text injection warning, which is behavioral context the annotations cannot express. It does not mention caching, rate limits, or freshness of the broker-sourced values, keeping it below 5.

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 tight sentences: field inventory, usage cue, safety warning, front-loaded with no padding. The field list is dense but each item is a distinct return value the caller needs.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the returned fields, plus adds a security caveat. Adequate for a two-param read tool; only minor gaps such as broker variance or nullability remain.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or constraints beyond the 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?

States a specific resource (symbol specification) and enumerates the concrete fields it exposes (minVolume, maxVolume, volumeStep, contractSize, digits, point, tickSize, stopsLevel, filling modes, trade mode). This clearly separates it from get_quote and get_account_info, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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?

'Check volume limits here before placing an order' gives a concrete trigger and workflow position, tying it to place_order in the sibling set. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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