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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool is a 'read-only result summary' and that it 'keeps publication separate,' which is a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's main outputs, and every phrase earns its place. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It specifies the run must be completed and authenticated, lists return components, and distinguishes from a sibling. Minor gap: no mention of return format or error cases, but overall sufficient.

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% (the run_id parameter has a clear description). The tool description does not add further detail about the parameter beyond the schema, so 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?

The description explicitly states 'Return final performance metrics, benchmark comparison, ending portfolio, and compact trade attribution for an authenticated completed run,' providing a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling 'get_trades' by mentioning it supplies the full execution ledger.

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 clearly states when to use this tool ('for an authenticated completed run') and when not to ('keeps publication separate'). It names a specific alternative ('get_trades supplies the full execution ledger'), providing explicit guidance.

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