Get trader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the returned content (loyalty levels, buy/sell restrictions) and implies a read-only operation through 'Get', but it does not mention error behavior, authentication, rate limits, or any potential side effects. For a simple retrieval tool this is adequate but not 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 definition is a single, tightly scoped sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then adds return details. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description does well to specify the main return categories (loyalty levels, buy/sell restrictions). It does not enumerate every possible field, but 'full detail' plus those examples gives adequate context for an agent to judge the tool's usefulness. It also implicitly covers the key parameters in the schema. Slightly more detail about response structure would make it fully complete.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful value for the primary parameter 'idOrName' by specifying 'by id or name' and giving real examples ('Prapor', 'Therapist'). This clarifies the accepted format better than the schema's generic 'Trader id or name'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full detail for one trader'), and clarifies the lookup key ('by id or name') with concrete examples ('Prapor', 'Therapist'). It also names the returned content (loyalty levels, buy/sell restrictions), which distinguishes it from sibling 'list_traders' by scope (one vs all).

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 usage context is clear: use this tool to retrieve full details for a single trader. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the specificity of the purpose ('for one trader') makes the appropriate situation obvious. No exclusions are stated, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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