get_planned_rr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the analysis produces (planned vs realized RR, target hit rate, R-multiple distribution), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, data source, or rate limits. For a low-risk read-only analytical tool this is acceptable 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?

Front-loaded with the core comparison in the first sentence, followed by scope details and examples. The four example questions are slightly repetitive but earn their place by clarifying usage.

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 read-only analytical tool with no output schema, the description explains the metrics returned well enough for an agent to know what to expect. Missing details are minor given the low-risk, non-mutating nature of the tool.

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 account/date_from/date_to are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (compare) and resource (planned R:R vs actual realized R:R), and elaborates on the analytical dimensions covered (target execution, cutting winners early, R-multiple distribution). An agent can distinguish this from get_strategy_stats or get_edge_by_market without opening any schema.

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 example questions give clear context for when to reach for this tool, effectively routing the agent. However, no explicit exclusions or named alternatives are provided, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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