Get trade history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing 'Reads the local database only (no network) and changes nothing', which explains the data source and connector behavior that annotations don't convey. It stops short of mentioning ordering beyond the schema's 'newest first' or pagination limits.

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 what the tool does, followed immediately by the behavioral note and the sibling routing. No filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return format needn't be described; annotations cover safety; schema covers parameters. The description completes the picture with the local-DB/no-network behavioral fact and sibling routing, leaving no meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is 100% (limit clamping, account naming constraints are fully documented in the schema), so the description needn't explain parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('List an account's recent trades') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not name sibling tools in the purpose sentence itself, though it does distinguish from portfolio/stats later.

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 routes the agent: 'Use portfolio for open positions or stats for aggregate performance.' This names the alternatives and the conditions that select them, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance needed among 30+ siblings.

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