tas_guard_status

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's 'Read-only' is largely redundant. However, it adds genuine value with no output schema present by enumerating what is surfaced (limits, today's usage, kill switch, pending approvals), which is behavioral content beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool name and the exact content shown, with the safety note last. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the only open question is what the tool returns, and the description answers that by naming the four reported areas. It stops short of describing format or freshness beyond 'today's usage', but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing further for the description to clarify, and it correctly implies the tool operates on the ambient connection rather than taking arguments.

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 gives a specific verb ('show') and an enumerated resource set (trading limits, today's usage, kill switch, pending approvals) scoped to 'this connection', which a reader can easily distinguish from get_account_info or get_orders. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, which is what a 5 would require.

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?

Usage is implied by the content ('limits that apply to this connection'), so an agent can infer it answers a risk/limits check, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over get_account_info or when it is not appropriate. No prerequisites, timing, or exclusions are given.

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