journal_trade_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Return full details') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, require no authentication, or describe any side effects. Lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or required permissions.

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: the first states the core action and scope, the second enumerates returned metrics. No filler, information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema (presumably detailing return structure), the description covers purpose, input, and output. It lacks usage guidelines and explicit behavioral transparency, but is otherwise complete for basic functionality.

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 schema provides only an 'entry_id' integer parameter with no description. The tool description adds meaning by stating 'by ID' and listing the returned fields, clarifying what the parameter represents and what the response includes. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 verb 'Return', the resource 'trade entry by ID', and specifies the scope 'full details including all computed metrics'. It lists specific fields (entry/exit prices, PnL, tags, rationale, notes) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like journal_list_trades that likely provide only summaries.

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 retrieving a single trade's details, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like journal_list_trades, journal_add_trade, or journal_close_trade. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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