check_trade_legitimacy

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows repeated calls are safe and non-destructive. The description adds value by listing the specific evaluation criteria (sample size, memory quality, regime experience, streak state, drawdown), which gives behavioral insight beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance and evaluation criteria. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema (as noted) and annotations, so the description need not explain return values. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, and what it evaluates. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative mentions, but for the tool's complexity, this is complete enough.

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 all parameters are well-documented. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; the mentioned criteria are internal evaluations, not parameter explanations. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check if the agent has sufficient data and confidence to trade.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('trade legitimacy'), and differentiates from siblings by focusing on pre-trade evaluation with explicit criteria (sample size, memory quality, regime experience, streak state, drawdown). This distinguishes it from related tools like check_active_plans or validate_strategy.

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 description explicitly instructs 'Call this before making any trade decision,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention explicit alternatives or when not to use it, but the instruction is strong and the purpose is distinguishable from siblings, which is sufficient for a 4.

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