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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it is deterministic, calls internal functions (generate_alpha_card, evaluate_deliverability), explains the free-tier cap mechanism, and states that errors are returned (not raised) for specific conditions. This exceeds the burden for a tool without 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose but becomes verbose with internal implementation details (e.g., 'calls generate_alpha_card ...') and a confusing sentence about 'PRICE_INTEGRITY blocker.' It could be more succinct while retaining essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, multiple error states, an output schema), the description covers most aspects: purpose, prerequisites, error cases, and free-tier cap. It lacks parameter explanations, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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%, and the description does not explain the two optional parameters (year, agent_token). It only implicitly mentions 'ticker' is required. The agent lacks guidance on what 'year' means (e.g., fiscal year?) or the role of 'agent_token', making parameter usage unclear.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Generate a Governance Alpha Card for a company.' It details the card's components (pay alignment, governance scorecard, etc.) and specifies it requires the company to be in Velarion's coverage universe. This differentiates it from sibling tools like benchmark_executive_pay or compare_companies, which serve different functions.

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?

The description provides explicit conditions for use: the company must be in coverage with current-period data. It also mentions structured errors for not_in_coverage and not_deliverable, guiding the agent on when the tool will fail. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of predict_say_on_pay_risk').

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