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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds a genuine behavioral detail not in the annotations: an unscoped call returns additional sections (decision_readiness, balance_validation, scout_currency_quality, data_coverage) that a scoped call does not, so the shape of the response depends on how it is called.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and use case, then a return inventory. The middle sentence is a long comma-separated list that is dense, but each item is informative and no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so enumerating return values is partly redundant, yet the description covers scoping behavior, use cases, and safety context for a 2-param read tool. 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that omitting scope filters changes the returned payload ('On an unscoped call also returns...'), which gives the optional parameters semantic weight rather than just being filters.

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 ('Returns') plus the resource ('safe import and data-quality diagnostics') and then enumerates the concrete signals returned (duplicate invoice IDs, missing fields, rate gaps, P&L readiness). This is far more specific than the sibling get_* tools and lets an agent distinguish it immediately.

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 names the triggering questions: 'why CSV imports failed' and 'why P&L is incomplete'. That is clear context for use, but it offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. get_account_status) for adjacent questions.

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