enable_real_trading

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses permanence, one-way nature, idempotency, rejection without credentials, and audit_log side effect. It does not mention potential risks or permission requirements beyond credentials.

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 sentences, dense with information and no redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The description covers key behavioral aspects (permanence, idempotency, preconditions, audit) but leaves gaps: no explanation of request_id/idempotency_key parameters, no mention of return value or error cases beyond credential-less rejection. Given no output schema and minimal schema, it is not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'account' but does not explain 'account_id' directly, and completely omits 'request_id' and 'idempotency_key' despite mentioning idempotency as a property. The description adds little beyond the schema.

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 action: permanently converting the account's trading lock to 'real', with specific details like being one-way and idempotent. This distinguishes it from sibling 'disable_real_trading'.

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 context (when enabling real trading) and a precondition (account must have credentials), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison to sibling tools like 'disable_real_trading'.

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