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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description does add real behavioral context beyond that — the book is only 'served once its long picks are fully graded, so other rows can still have null outcomes' — which warns the agent about partial null data. However, it stops short of describing pagination, size/volume expectations, or anything about the response shape, so it sits at adequate rather than rich.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core definition followed by the grading caveat and sibling routing — no filler. Slightly dense in places ('verify_batch for the book's proof'), but every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, discovery path, grading precondition, null-outcome caveat, and error condition. Nothing an agent needs in order 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the YYYY-MM-DD format plus the pointer to list_resolved_batches. The description adds no format, range, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one graded book with every forecast and its outcome') and immediately defines the domain term 'book' as 'one trading day's full S&P 500 slate.' This is clearly distinct from siblings like list_resolved_batches and get_stock_resolved_history, which return lists or per-stock histories rather than a single day's full slate.

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 routes the agent to the right siblings: list_resolved_batches to discover the date, verify_batch for proof, get_book_portfolio for portfolio data. It also names the failure condition ('An ungraded or unknown date is an error'), which tells the agent when not to call with an arbitrary date.

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