Create Trading Plan

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful state behavior — the plan persists until triggered, expired, or cancelled. It stops short of noting authorization needs, what happens on duplicate plans (relevant given idempotentHint=false), or any rate/size limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by lifecycle context; nothing is padded. Minor overlap between 'prospective trading plan' and 'prospective memory' costs it the top score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents the six parameters. The lifecycle sentence completes the picture; only the relationship to 'check_active_plans' and the consequences of a non-idempotent create are unaddressed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, every parameter including priority, expiry_days, trigger_type, planned_action, trigger_condition, and reasoning is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond it, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a prospective trading plan') and clarifies the defining behavior — activation on met conditions. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the related sibling 'check_active_plans', which is the main thing an agent would confuse this with when looking for existing plans.

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 explains the plan's lifecycle but never says when an agent should create a plan rather than, say, record a memory ('remember_trade') or inspect existing plans ('check_active_plans'). No alternatives or prerequisites are named, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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