get_daily_loss_proximity

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds a specific behavioral detail: returns DEGRADED when P&L source is unknown instead of fail-open OK, providing additional transparency beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first explains what it reads, second covers a special return behavior. No redundancy.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and a notable edge case. Complete and sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% and the description does not need to add parameter info. It explains the output, which is helpful for the agent. A score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds value without lacking param details.

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 reads daily loss proximity guard status, listing specific items: today's P&L vs $500 limit, utilization %, thresholds, and evidence verification. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('daily loss proximity guard status'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_account or get_protection_config.

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 implies usage for checking loss proximity guard status. It does not explicitly specify when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions, but the context is clear given the tool's narrow focus among similar get_ tools.

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