Generate PK card

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the compared metrics (ROI, Sharpe, win rate, trades, tier), the data source (local accounts), and the valuation rule for open positions at live midpoints with a documented failure fallback of 0. It does not mention any auth or rate considerations, but none are plausibly needed for this local read.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and deliverable, with the alternatives packed into the final line. Every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained; the description still covers inputs' nature, data sources, valuation edge case, and sibling routing. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters (account_a, account_b) are fully documented with defaults, so the schema carries the burden. The description only implies that two accounts are supplied and adds no naming, format, or defaulting detail beyond it.

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 (compare) and resource (two existing accounts) plus the deliverable (a card naming the winner). It also names the two closest siblings, pk_battle and stats_card, so an agent can distinguish this tool without opening any schema.

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 pk_battle to run two strategies from scratch, or stats_card for a single account. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else conditions are stated.

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