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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the severity ordering rule, the exact special case that sole traders are never scored and carry no signals, paging semantics, and the fact that the response carries the exact total. This is genuine disclosure that the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the resource identity, then special case, then ordering, then paging. Every sentence carries information the agent needs, and there is no filler. The first sentence is an extremely dense enumeration of return fields, which strains readability and could have been split, but little of it is wasted given the absence of an output schema.

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 carries the full burden of the return shape and does so thoroughly: per-row fields, the special-case row shape for sole traders, the sort order, paging, the exact total, and the include_inactive toggle. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3: limit/offset/defaults are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the paging behavior and restates 'include_inactive' semantics ('exposures no longer actively monitored') without adding new meaning such as ordering impact or interaction with the total count.

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 opening clause states a specific resource and scope: 'The monitored book itself: one row per exposure', and then enumerates exactly what each row carries. An agent can understand this is the exhaustive exposure listing without opening a schema. It does not, however, name or contrast itself against near siblings such as portfolio_overview or deal_book, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 implied rather than stated: the tool reads as the full book listing, and the only explicit guidance is 'Set include_inactive true to include exposures no longer actively monitored.' There is no when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement, so an agent choosing between portfolio_book, portfolio_overview and deal_book gets no routing help.

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