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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add scoping context — and it does: values are fractions of equity and USD, and real money versus sandbox are counted separately, which materially affects interpretation. It also warns that pending limit increases are included. It stops short of describing freshness or aggregation nuances, but with an output schema present that gap is minor.

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 content is front-loaded with scope, then exclusions, then units, then the next step — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The first sentence is dense with a long parenthetical list, which costs a little readability but every element carries information.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, triggers, exclusion routing, unit conventions, sandbox-vs-real separation, and a follow-up step ('Next: size_position'). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description confirms 'No inputs' so the agent does not look for filtering options. It also clarifies units (equity fractions and USD) which governs how the returned values should be read.

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 (the person's global risk limits and usage) and enumerates the covered dimensions: per-trade risk, daily/weekly/monthly loss, drawdown, leverage, open positions, plus pending limit increases. It explicitly marks its boundary against the closest sibling (get_my_trading_permissions), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 two concrete trigger conditions ('when a trade was rejected by a user-level limit' and 'before planning several trades') and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('Not for this agent's own permissions (use get_my_trading_permissions)'). That is the full when-to-use / when-not / alternative triad.

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