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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the burden is light. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context: risks are NOT linked across boards because the brief rephrases them, and detail trades payload size for depth with a concrete size ratio. It omits pricing/rate-limit info, hence not a 5.

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, then scoping and parameter behavior. Dense but each sentence earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 structure needn't be described, and the description handles the temporal semantics and size tradeoffs well. However, with 0% schema coverage it leaves scope and market entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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% for 4 params, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly documents days_back bounds/default and the three detail modes, but says nothing about scope or market (only inferable from defaults 'retail'/'global'), leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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+resource ('track risk evolution') and immediately defines it as the multi-week historical board series, oldest first, which cleanly distinguishes it from the snapshot sibling get_risk_radar. An agent can select it without opening the 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?

Gives explicit context for use ('every risk radar the brief published over recent weeks') and rules for days_back (7..90, default 30) and detail levels. It does not, however, explicitly name when to choose this over get_risk_radar or get_executive_brief, leaving the alternative implicit.

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