account_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the terminal-selection dependency and an explicit negative guarantee that nothing is placed, modified, or closed. It does not say whether figures are live or cached, in which currency, or what happens when no active terminal exists, which matters for a live-trading context.

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: purpose first, then the return payload, then a safety negation. Nothing is padded, and the enumeration of returned fields is compact rather than rambling.

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 input schema, no output schema, and a rich annotation set, the description carries only the burden of explaining the return payload and the read-only nature, and it does both by listing the fields explicitly. Freshness of the readings and behavior when no terminal is active are the remaining gaps.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no invented input detail.

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 and resource ("Read account health") scoped to "the active terminal," and enumerates exactly what comes back, which separates it from siblings like positions or orders that return only one of those slices. It stops short of naming a sibling and saying when to prefer it, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 phrase "for the active terminal" implies a precondition (a terminal must be selected via use_terminal) and the closing sentence signals this is a snapshot, not a trading action. There is no explicit guidance about when to call this versus positions, orders, or terminal_status, which overlap heavily with the returned data.

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