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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description reinforces this with 'does not execute trades, open dealing pages, or transfer assets' and adds that output is policy-derived, but it says nothing about latency, caching, or how policy_override interacts with stored policy beyond the schema text.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core identity of the tool front-loaded before the safety caveat. Slightly terse given the tool's calculation complexity, but nothing is wasted.

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 return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. What is missing is placement in the workflow – when an agent should call this versus get_fx_exposure, get_hedge_portfolio, or get_protection_builder_snapshot – which matters for a tool with a nested override object and no required parameters.

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%, including nested policy_override fields with ranges and semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('policy-derived candidate rows') and its content ('suggested notional amounts for open currency exposures'), so an agent knows this returns hedging suggestions rather than raw exposure data. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-neighbors like get_fx_exposure, get_hedge_portfolio, or get_protection_builder_snapshot.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only routing signal is the negative 'does not execute trades, open dealing pages, or transfer assets', which tells the agent what the tool is not rather than when to prefer it over sibling exposure/hedging tools.

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