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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: per-call cost of $2.50, which should make an agent think twice before invoking it. It does not describe latency or pagination, but with an output schema present the remaining burden is low.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the cost signal, that wastes little space while packing in the content domains. The trailing enumeration is slightly list-like but each item earns its place by describing coverage.

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 parameters and an output schema to explain the return shape, the description only needs to convey scope and cost, which it does. The one real gap is differentiating this from the many similar shadowgraph siblings, which complexity here does not excuse.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No syntax, defaults, or format guidance is needed here.

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 names a specific resource (a global intelligence brief) and enumerates the data domains it fuses (official disclosures, EU procurement, news, relationship graph, lead/lag, opportunities), so an agent understands what it returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as shadowgraph_global_snapshot or shadowgraph_deep_research, leaving the 'brief vs snapshot' choice ambiguous.

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 'Paid ($2.50/call)' marker and 'Higher-density' phrasing imply this is a premium, heavier option to be used selectively rather than a default, which is useful implied guidance. But no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule despite a shadowgraph_free_preview and several overlapping siblings existing.

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