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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already declaring the safety profile, the description still adds substantial operational context: the subject is read first so an unreadable id returns not found, the returned paths are fetched with the same key which needs the reports scope, and no document is generated by the call. These are non-obvious access, failure, and side-effect details not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Purpose and subject-to-document mapping are front-loaded and every sentence carries information about ids, behavior, or access. The prose is dense and slightly run-on in places, but there is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the return shape (per-document /v1 paths), the failure mode, the required key scope, and the document inventory per subject type. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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, but the description goes further by naming the exact id namespace each subject expects — the deal id as deal_book serves it, the registry company_profile id written as digits, the graph node id from search_companies. That disambiguates a parameter whose schema text only says "deal, counterparty or company."

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 states the resource (documents of one subject) and the outcome (per-document /v1 download paths), and enumerates exactly which document types exist for each of the three subject kinds. The verb is somewhat oblique ("Where to download...") rather than a crisp action, and no sibling tool is named as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives concrete routing guidance by tying each subject enum value to the tool that supplies its id (deal_book for deals, company_profile for counterparties, search_companies for companies), which is exactly the prerequisite an agent needs before calling. It does not say when not to use it, e.g. versus search_stonewake_docs or fetch for document retrieval, so explicit exclusions are missing.

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