Grid Strategy Consent

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the business context of a one-time prerequisite, but doesn't disclose additional side effects, response details, or failure modes. It neither contradicts nor significantly extends the annotations, making a 3 appropriate.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action ('Record...') and adds the prerequisite context in the same sentence, followed by a clear parameter note. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and the usage prerequisite. It doesn't mention return values or error handling, but the annotation set (especially idempotentHint) covers behavioral expectations. A small gap is the lack of what occurs if consent already exists, but the idempotent hint mitigates this. Complete enough for a low-complexity 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters,' which is consistent with the empty schema. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description confirms this without adding unnecessary noise.

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 the specific verb 'Record' with the resource 'one-time grid strategy risk-disclosure consent' and explicitly states the prerequisite context ('required before submitting grid orders'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like grid_submit, grid_cancel, and grid_replace, which handle order actions.

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'required before submitting grid orders', which implies using it prior to grid_submit. It also notes the 'one-time' nature, giving a clear usage boundary. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios like when consent already exists, nor does it name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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