ibkr_executions

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

The annotations already convey that the tool is read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds little behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose default behavior when no filters are supplied, output size, pagination, or any rate 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and key capability without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The combination of the description, 100% schema coverage, and read-only annotations is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with optional filters. However, the description does not explain the return format, no-filter behavior, or potential constraints, and there is no output schema to fill that 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%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only gestures at filters such as account, symbol, side, or time, adding no format, enum, or timezone details beyond what the schema 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as 'execution reports' and the action as 'Return', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ibkr_positions, ibkr_open_orders, and ibkr_historical_bars.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage hint is the list of optional filters, which is implicit rather than explicit routing guidance.

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