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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the signed convention for deficit spending (negative means deficit), which is genuinely useful for reading results, but says nothing about source coverage, defaults (Fund 01, balance sheet from actuals), or error behavior for unknown districts.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the metric convention. Nothing extraneous, though the space saved is not spent on the missing information.

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 9-parameter tool with an output schema and a batch sibling, the description omits the district_identifier format, the fiscal-year windowing, the basis/detail tradeoff, and any notion of what a row contains. It is far too thin for the surface area involved.

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 0% across 9 parameters, and the description compensates for none of them: basis, detail, client_id, fiscal_year_min/max, one_time_resource_codes, and include_balance_sheet_from_actuals are all left to inference. The self-describing enums and defaults in the schema keep this above a 1, but the burden clearly isn't met.

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?

It names a verb and an outcome ('build fiscal-distress rows with source filing details'), so the agent knows roughly what comes back. But 'fiscal-distress rows' and 'context pack' are unexplained domain jargon, and nothing distinguishes this from sacs_query_financial_summary or sacs_district_context_pack_batch among the siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool, no prerequisites (e.g. registration via sacs_register_client), and no pointer to the batch variant or the summary-query sibling. The only guidance is a metric definition, not usage selection.

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