get_behavior_report

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden; it does disclose the detection categories and that monetary cost accompanies them, which is useful context. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, how flags are scored or thresholded, or how the period/date filters interact in practice.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, and the most informative content (the specific flag categories) comes first. The trailing ellipsis and '...with cost' phrasing are slightly informal, but the definition is appropriately sized.

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 structure need not be explained, and all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. What is missing is calling context: how this diagnostic report should be used relative to the sibling performance and coaching tools, and what the report fundamentally contains beyond a flag list.

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 the schema already documents period enums, symbol suffix handling, and date range precedence. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific resource — behavioural red flags (revenge trading, overtrading, stops, early exits, sizing up after losses) — and adds that cost is reported. That is much more concrete than the tool name alone, though it never contrasts itself with siblings such as get_performance or get_coaching_context.

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?

It says nothing about when to call this versus get_performance, get_coaching_context, or find_trades, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is the diagnostic/behavioral counterpart to a plain performance report.

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