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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description still earns credit by specifying market-order execution (slippage/fill-price implications) and a user-confirmation gate, neither of which appears in the annotations or schema. It stops short of saying whether pending orders are cancelled or whether the action is reversible once fills occur.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the destructive scope is stated before the confirmation requirement. Every clause earns its place.

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 a full annotation set, a fully described two-parameter schema, and an output schema, the description only needs to convey intent, execution style, and the confirmation gate, which it does. It could say more about the blast radius (all strategies/accounts versus one) for a tool that mass-closes positions.

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 idempotency_key and expected_version are well documented there, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as when expected_version should be supplied manually versus auto-fetched. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Close every open paper position and run at the market" gives a concrete verb (close), a concrete scope (every open position), and an execution mode (market). It is distinguishable from siblings like close_paper_run or reset_paper_account, though it never explicitly says how it differs from them.

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?

The description supplies a procedural precondition ("Confirm with the user first") but no guidance on when to choose this over reset_paper_account or close_paper_run, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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