Read one bot's performance

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the required `bots:read` scope, the exact rate limit (600/min shared across the whole `default` group, ten per second), and explains these are stored-record reads rather than venue calls, hence cheap. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the outcome (P&L plus fill stats), then constraints. Most sentences earn their place, but 'Ten a second' merely restates the 600/min figure and is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return payload (realized P&L, fill statistics, decimal-string money keyed by asset/symbol) and covers auth plus rate limits. It stops short of describing what the fill statistics contain, leaving a small gap for a data-returning 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so `name`, `since`, and `until` are already documented. The description echoes the optional time window and adds a return-value caveat about decimal strings keyed by asset, but contributes nothing new about the input parameters themselves. Baseline 3.

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 resource and scope: 'That bot's realized profit and loss and its fill statistics, optionally over a time window.' An agent can distinguish this from get_bot_config or list_bot_orders by the performance-metrics framing. It does not name a sibling to route away from, so it stays short of the top score.

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 mention of an optional time window implies when to use it (historical performance review), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the 25 siblings. Adequate but inference-only.

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