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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: deterministic execution, server-side vs browser delegation, transient processing with no storage or logging, and emission of an AP2 artifact carrying execution_hash for chain provenance. It omits any note on rate limits, failure modes, or what happens when the upstream artifacts are absent.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded but the opening repeats itself ('Cash Forecast Accuracy Scoring: OpenChainGraph compute node... Deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node'), and a long FV-status hash URL plus a full output-field enumeration pad the body. Usable, but several sentences are boilerplate present on every sibling node.

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?

For a 4-param chained compute node with no output schema, the description covers purpose, execution model, data-handling guarantees, upstream artifact dependencies, and an explicit list of returned fields with a pointer to describe_tool. The gap is the input contract for `forecasts`, which is neither shown nor linked.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the description largely restates the compute-mode semantics already in the `compute` property text. It adds nothing about the shape of `policy_parameters.forecasts` (an untyped array), which is the one real ambiguity in the schema.

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 ('Scores treasury cash forecast accuracy') and the governing benchmark (AFP Cash Forecasting Survey 2024), which is far more than the name restated. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling compute_forecast_accuracy_score, leaving an agent unable to tell which to call.

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 an input constraint ('Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only') and names the upstream artifacts it consumes, which implies a chain context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus the sibling forecast-accuracy tool or the alternative chain/export tools.

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