paper_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds value by enumerating the report contents (capital, PnL, drawdown, etc.), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions or missing behavioral context for this simple read operation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key elements efficiently. No unnecessary words.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a thorough list of returned information. It could specify format details (e.g., percentages vs absolute numbers), but the current description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the output.

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 schema coverage is 100% and description need not add param info. The description compensates by detailing what the report contains, which is effectively the parameter impact.

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 it returns a paper-trading account report with specific elements like capital, PnL, drawdown, etc. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on status rather than actions like reset or step.

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 current account status but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Siblings like paper_reset and paper_step hint at when to use this tool, but no direct guidance.

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