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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it returns a point-in-time snapshot and supports historical as-of dates, which is not visible in the annotations.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core value and output contents; the second handles historical usage and sibling differentiation. Every clause 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?

The description richly covers outputs (and an output schema exists) and explains as_of, but it omits scope and market semantics that an agent would need to parameterize calls for different radar views. It is adequate for a basic call with defaults but not fully complete for the tool's intended variations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents as_of format and meaning, but says nothing about scope or market — two of the three parameters — leaving their semantics to guesswork despite defaults 'retail' and 'global'. This is a substantial gap.

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 identifies a specific deliverable — the risk radar as judged by the Antevo Executive Brief — and enumerates its contents (trend, impact, probability, why it matters, regime, indicators). It also distinguishes from track_risk_evolution by positioning that sibling as the tool for how risks have developed over weeks.

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?

It states when to use this tool (to see current or as-of risk radar), how to pass a historical date ('Pass as_of (YYYY-MM-DD)'), and explicitly routes trend-over-time use to track_risk_evolution. This gives clear contextual choice guidance against the main sibling.

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