Journal dashboard

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them, including close-day bucketing in the journal timezone, open positions counting toward any window reaching today, what compare:true returns (a `previous` window), null-metric semantics, and the OAuth sign-in requirement. It stops short of covering pagination, output size limits, or latency/rate behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and efficient overall, with routing and prerequisites trailing correctly. The long parenthetical metric enumeration is dense but justified for a dashboard tool, since it tells the agent what it will receive without an output schema.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and open-world annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces: return contents, window semantics, compare behavior, defaults, null handling, and auth. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining compare's effect ('adds `previous` — the equal-length window just before'), the default 30-day window, and the timezone/bucketing rule that governs how from/to and range are interpreted.

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 specific verb and resource ('the journal dashboard in one call for a window') and enumerates the metric families returned, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It also explicitly names sibling routes (journal_breakdown, journal_list_trades), making it easy to distinguish from them.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent elsewhere when appropriate: 'Use journal_breakdown for where the P&L comes from and journal_list_trades for the trades themselves.' It also states the default window (last 30 days) and how to widen it (range: 'all' or explicit from/to), covering when and how to invoke.

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