strategy_get_equity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds pagination as a behavioral trait, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it omits any mention of the expected_* preconditions (target_id, expected_layout_id, expected_session) that gate the call, which is surprising for a read tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the pagination behavior, and the scope exclusion with no filler. The negative clause is unusual but earns its place by disambiguating bar-level equity data.

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 10-parameter read tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: the role of entity_id, ordering semantics, and the entire family of expected_* precondition parameters go unaddressed. What the returned per-trade records contain is also left implicit.

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 only 20% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It mentions pagination generically but gives no meaning for entity_id, order, limit/offset bounds, or the expected_inputs/expected_symbol/expected_session/expected_timeframe guard parameters.

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 clear verb ('Read') and precisely scoped resource ('per-trade account values and cumulative P&L'), and the clause 'does not claim per-bar equity' draws a boundary that separates it from bar-level siblings. It never names an actual sibling such as strategy_get_trades or research_equity_metrics, so differentiation is by scope description only.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus strategy_get_trades, strategy_get_report, or research_equity_metrics, all of which live in adjacent territory. The negative scope note ('does not claim per-bar equity') hints at a boundary but never tells the agent what condition should select this tool.

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