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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context - the default dust filtering and the set of sections returned - but says nothing about pagination, response size, or what happens for a nonexistent handle. It adds value without being rich.

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, no filler, and the resource identification comes first. The second sentence is a useful defaults note. The middle list of payload sections is dense but each item earns its place by describing return content.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of communicating return content, and it does so by enumerating sections and noting PnL/value inclusion. Combined with a complete input schema, an agent has enough to call it. Missing only edge-case behavior such as unknown handles or section interaction.

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%, so every parameter including the include section list and the limit cap is already documented in structured form. The description only reinforces include_dust's default, which the schema states anyway. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

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?

States a concrete resource with scope ("A public trader's book by handle") and enumerates the payload: holdings, perps, closed positions, cash, realized PnL, balance curve. That distinguishes it from get_trader (profile) and get_trader_activity without naming them explicitly, so it's clear but not actively differentiated.

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 mention of alternatives like get_trader or get_trader_activity, and no prerequisites. The only conditional statement ("Dust is hidden unless include_dust is true") is parameter behavior, not selection guidance. The word "public" is the sole hint about applicability.

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