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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: it explains how omitted figures are handled ('never zeroed') and what kinds of uncertainties are surfaced. This is useful behavioral context about data semantics that 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?

The description is a single very long sentence with multiple nested clauses and parenthetical examples. While front-loaded with the core purpose, the dense structure makes it harder to parse than necessary. It could be broken into shorter sentences without losing content.

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?

Covers what the tool returns and why it matters, with no output schema to compensate. For a read-only metadata tool with rich annotations, this is nearly complete. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state whether the response is text or structured, but that is a small omission given the tool's nature.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema with examples and usage guidance. The description adds no parameter-specific information. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 this returns the record's self-explanation: sourcing notes, coverage notes, uncertainties, and absent standard figures. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_financials and get_statements by focusing on metadata about the record rather than the figures themselves. However, the opening phrase 'The record's explanation of itself' is abstract and could be more directly stated before the detailed enumeration.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'to read before relying on an unusual figure or concluding one is missing.' This is a clear trigger condition that routes agents correctly away from sibling tools. It also implicitly covers what it is not for—getting the actual figures.

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