Get Behavioral Analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful facts that data comes from procedural memory and is pre-aggregated rather than raw trades, but says nothing about computation timing, latency, or whether results are recomputed on call.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the returned metrics listed compactly. Slightly redundant with the title, and the return-value enumeration duplicates what an output schema presumably already carries.

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 the return enumeration is more than strictly necessary, and annotations handle safety. The remaining gap is routing: with many sibling read/analysis tools, the description never says when this is the right call versus get_strategy_performance or get_trade_reflection.

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% and both optional filter parameters (symbol, strategy_name) are documented in the schema, including the 'returns all if omitted' semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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+resource ('get behavioral analysis from procedural memory') and enumerates the aggregate outputs (hold times, disposition ratio, lot sizing variance, Kelly criterion). It is distinguishable from generic siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with close alternatives such as get_strategy_performance or get_trade_reflection.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer that this tool is for post-hoc behavioral diagnostics rather than performance review, which is exactly the gap that sibling tools get_strategy_performance and get_trade_reflection occupy.

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