trading_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that the tool is an offline configuration read, does not validate the session, and that real-money execution is permanently unavailable. These details go beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a key caveat and a clarifying note. Every sentence contributes essential information, making it a model of concision.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential semantic content: what the tool reports (paper-simulation policy and session presence), that it is offline, and that it does not validate the session. It leaves minimal ambiguity for an agent deciding to call it, though it could potentially mention the return format.

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 vacuously 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to explain parameters. It adds meaning by describing what the tool reads, which is sufficient in the absence of inputs.

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 as 'Local paper-simulation policy and securities session presence' and clarifies it is an offline configuration read. It clearly indicates what information the tool provides and distinguishes it from real-money trading, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'gets'.

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 context: it is for local paper-simulation status, not real-money execution, and it does not validate sessions. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over others like 'status' or 'market_session', leaving the routing partially to inference.

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