Sell journal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's field list adds genuine value because there is no output schema, telling the agent what each row contains. It says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or which filters combine, so it stays at a baseline-plus level rather than rich.

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 text is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is efficient. But it is a sentence fragment with no verb, which is under-specification rather than disciplined concision for a 7-parameter tool.

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 7-parameter, zero-required-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description omits the operation verb, usage context, sibling differentiation, and pagination/filter interaction. It gives just enough to guess the payload, not enough to call the tool confidently.

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 71%, which is above the 50% floor but below the 80% mark where the schema alone suffices. The description mentions no parameter at all, so it does not compensate for the unexplained 29% (notably 'page'/'limit' semantics and how period vs from/to interact are only in the schema).

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 fragment names the resource and enumerates row contents (exit price, volume, average entry price, net P/L), so an agent can infer it returns sell executions. However, it has no verb ('get'/'list') and does nothing to distinguish it from close siblings like get_closed_trades or get_realized_returns, leaving the purpose only vaguely bounded.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all, and no alternative is named. With several overlapping siblings (get_closed_trades, get_realized_returns, get_account_orders), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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