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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it confirms the read-only nature (consistent with readOnlyHint), states records are immutable, and clarifies that unfilled orders are excluded. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. The key action and scope are front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description covers the return value (filled trades), exclusions (unfilled orders), relation to sibling (get_results), and authentication context. It is complete for an agent to decide usage.

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 coverage is 100% and the description does not add extra meaning for the run_id parameter beyond what the schema provides. The schema already defines it as 'Run UUID returned by start_run.' 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 clearly states the tool returns every immutable filled-trade record for an authenticated run, and distinguishes it from get_results which provides aggregate performance. It specifies the scope (filled trades only) and the read-only nature.

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 explains what the tool returns and what it excludes (unfilled queued orders), and points to get_results for aggregate data. While it does not explicitly say 'use this when you need filled trades', the context is clear. It could be improved with an explicit 'when to use' statement.

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