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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds the important behavioral constraint that 'Wycena' requires PRO, which is useful contextual information beyond the annotation. It does not disclose what the response contains, but the read-only safety profile is already covered.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The PRO note is placed second and is reasonably concise, though its wording is slightly awkward.

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 tool with six parameters, a nested account object, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never states what the returned recommendation looks like, what units it is in, or when to choose this over suggest_order_size. The rich parameter descriptions in the schema compensate for inputs, but the overall call context remains incomplete.

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 the input schema already documents every parameter, including optional account scoping and the stop-loss R-multiple behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of volatility and concentration provides conceptual framing but adds no concrete parameter details 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?

The first sentence names a concrete action and resource: it suggests a position size, and adds differentiating factors 'volatility and portfolio concentration' that separate it from generic ordering tools like suggest_order_size. The second sentence about 'Wycena requires PRO' is slightly ambiguous in translation, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling alternatives. The only contextual note is the PRO requirement, which is a precondition rather than guidance on choosing this tool over suggest_order_size or recommend_diversification.

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