session_status

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

The description thoroughly discloses the tool's behavior and return values, including details like account_type being ground truth from IBKR's isPaper, trade_stops being active reasons not to trade, and the advisory safe_to_trade flag. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so excellently.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed bullet points. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall well-organized.

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 has no output schema, the description fully explains all return fields: identity, posture, warnings. It covers everything needed for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly. No gaps are apparent.

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 no parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it adds meaning about the output, which is valuable given no output schema. The description effectively communicates what the tool returns.

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 purpose: to check trading posture and which account is live. It starts with a direct question 'am I safe to trade right now?' and explains it returns identity, account info, and safety indicators. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like buying or selling.

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 implies usage for an unattended caller to self-gate and mentions 'safe_to_trade', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides context but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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