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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an unscoped call additionally returns maturity_ladder, cashflow_coverage, and hedge_maturity_coverage, while a scoped call does not. That conditional-output disclosure is the kind of trait annotations cannot express. It does not cover rate limits, auth needs, or timing/latency.

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 leads in the first clause, usage follows, and the conditional-output detail is last, which is a sensible front-loaded ordering. Both sentences are dense and largely earn their place, though the middle list of bucket labels is long and edges toward enumeration for its own sake.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope semantics, the trigger question types, and the fact that unscoped calls return additional aggregates. Nothing material 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%, so the baseline is 3, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description earns an extra point by explaining the semantic consequence of the parameter combination: omitting both yields the whole-workspace report and unlocks the extra aggregate blocks, which the schema does not state.

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 ('Returns FX cashflow timing by currency and bucket') and immediately decomposes it into receivables, payables, bank cash, and hedge maturities. This granularity lets an agent distinguish it from near neighbours like get_cashflow_forecast, get_cash_position, and get_fx_exposure without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit triggering conditions ('Monitor > Exposure & Cash Flow questions about overdue, next 30, 31-60, 61-90, beyond 90, undated, liquidity timing, or same-currency cash coverage'), which is unusually concrete. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to a specific alternative sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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