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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely informative behavioral context about the product's logic itself: engines are fixed, AI never generates figures, values may be provisional and carry sources, and the checks have defined limits. That is real disclosure beyond structured fields, though it stops short of saying how large the response is or that it is static reference content.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the resource and then lists its sections. It is dense but every clause maps to actual content; the colon-and-list construction keeps it scannable without padding.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does by enumerating the topics covered, which is sufficient for a read-only reference tool. The only substantive gap is the unexplained language parameter, which leaves the agent unable to localize the response deliberately.

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?

There is one parameter (lang, default 'ar') at 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — and it says nothing about language at all. An agent would not learn from the description that the content can be requested in a different language, which is a meaningful omission for a single-purpose reference tool.

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 names a specific informational resource: an explainer of how CFO+ produces its figures, enumerating the topics covered (fixed engines, AI explaining rather than generating, provisional values with sources, meaning of checks). This is clearly distinct from action-oriented siblings like fetch or search, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for methodology/trust questions about the numbers. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no mention of when another sibling (e.g. activity_details or search) would be preferable, and no note on whether this should be consulted before or after querying actual figures.

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