audit_trade_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the monetary cost ($0.07 USDC) and the return format (direction, PnL%, verdicts). However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the decision_id is invalid, or any authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise—two sentences and a brief verdict list. Every word adds value: purpose, cost, return types. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (direction, PnL%, verdicts). It also mentions cost as a contextual factor. However, it lacks details on error handling or what happens when the decision_id doesn't exist, which would be helpful for completeness.

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%, but the description adds valuable context: decision_id is a 'UUID from a previous get_crypto_decision call', window has a default and options, affiliate_id is optional with cost clarification. This enhances understanding beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Verify a Kronos decision_id against later market prices.' It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('decision_id') and distinguishes from siblings like get_crypto_decision by focusing on post-hoc verification.

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 phrase 'The accountability step' implies usage after a decision is made, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Alternatives (e.g., get_crypto_decision) are not mentioned, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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