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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly enumerating what the tool does NOT do (no trade execution, no broker instructions, no quote IDs, no hedge recommendations), which prevents the agent from misusing it as an action tool. It does not mention rate limits or caching, but the explicit negative capabilities are meaningful.

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?

Two efficient sentences: the first defines what is returned, the second lists exclusions. No redundancy, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a read-only tool with an output schema, one well-described optional parameter, and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned and what is not returned. Minor gap: does not mention how to interpret the snapshot relative to sibling forecast/exposure tools, but the output schema presumably handles the return structure. Good enough for correct invocation.

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?

With only one optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the currency filter (pattern, format, omitting behavior). The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description does not compensate with additional meaning.

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) and resource (read-only Protection Builder / Scenario Builder snapshot) and enumerates the four contents it delivers (simulated row inputs, residual exposure, cashflow-aware grouping, policy sizing context). Distinguishes itself from siblings like simulate_scenario and get_protection_candidates by emphasizing read-only snapshot content.

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 clearly delimits what the tool is NOT for (does not execute trades, produce broker instructions, return quote IDs, or recommend a hedge), which implicitly routes agents to simulate_scenario for execution-oriented needs. However, it does not name the sibling alternative explicitly or state when to use this tool vs. simulate_scenario or get_protection_candidates.

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