get_terminal_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the components of terminal state, which tells the agent what kind of read this is, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, side-effect free, or unauthenticated.

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 a single compact clause with zero filler, front-loading the resource ('Terminal state') and listing only the key state dimensions. Nothing is wasted.

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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description identifies the main return fields an agent needs. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting the read-only nature and confirming that these are the complete return values.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the schema and description correctly indicate no input is needed.

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 states the resource and the three pieces of terminal state returned: broker connection, algo-trading permission, and MT5 build. This is clear but not a full verb+resource statement and does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling get_account_info.

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?

It provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The tool name implies a read of terminal status, but the description itself does not help an agent choose between this and other getters.

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